Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: Stability of the Internet?
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:22:23 -0700

From: bmanning () vacation karoshi com
[mailto:bmanning () 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.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]