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.