Stability of the Internet?
rmeyer at mhsc.com
Wed May 23 16:22:23 UTC 2001
> From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
> [mailto:bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 4:02 PM
> > Since INT is for intenational treaty organization, the use
> of INT internally
> > would create a collision. Thereby, masking the entire INT
> TLD from the
> > clueless org that did that. In past /ICANN/DNSO discussions
> it has been
> > suggested, that we reserve a LOCAL or PRIVATE TLD for
> internal use only. Let
> > me know what y'all think and which one y'all prefer. My
> personal preference
> > is for both (three tiered <Internet>/Local/Private). The
> next question is;
> > should this be an RFC?
> INT was originally earmarked for multinational
> organizations. It
> was then inclusive of INTernet infrastructure and only
> later was
> the multinational charter clarified to restrict these groups to
> international treaty organizations.
> There is work being done in the IETF to create such a private
> use TLD.
Where? Also, this may bring on a jurisdiction issue with ICANN/DNSO. It is
the ICANN that is recommending new TLDs to the DOC, not the IETF. In order
tfor that effort to comply with WIP process, it should make attempts to
surface within relevent ICANN activity as well. Otherwise, ICANN doesn't
know about it and can't make appropriate recommendations. I'm very much
involved in that area and they are invisible to every one, in the DNSO. This
effects the open/transparent process and if they don't want to catch a LOT
of political flak (consider this fair-warning), they need to widen the
visibility of their effort. This effects ICANN policy directly and IETF
isn't a policy org. They are a PSO, not a DNSO.
ROELAND M.J. MEYER
More information about the NANOG