[dns-wg] {Use of} the INT TLD {by the NCC and others} [Re: RIPE NCC DNSSEC trust anchors]

Hi David,

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:21:00AM -1000, David Conrad wrote:

> Or, given the IANA Functions transition, the exact right point in time if people want to avoid a pointless political food fight.

well, we hopefully agree that 'unasking' the questions isn't the right
thing to do.  Whether ripe.int is OK to continue to exist is a detail that
only triggered the subsequent questions, that being the 'registration policy'
for the INT TLD and the governing body for other decisions (like the deployment
of DNSSEC, the DPS, choice of name server operators).  We don't need responses
instatntly (although you, Kim, and Barbara were helpful in providing those),
but the questions need to be listed.

> What's a "general protection of confidence"?

That's my, apparently failed, attempt to translate a legalese clause from
my mother tongue into English legalese with the help of this Internet.
It should have described a general priciple that anyone is entitled to
maintain their status, provided they got there bona fide and before
rules existed.

> > Also, the 'policy' document linked above does not provide
> > for a revocation mechanism.

> If an entity does not meet the documented policy criteria, then it should not be in the zone. However, IANA does not unilaterally remove zones. Traditionally, the entity simply says "please remove my entry".  Are you recommending RIPE knowingly and intentionally violate a documented policy?

Even if the NCC (or any other entity) did (or "do") not fulfill today's eligibility
criteria, the current policy does not include a revocation clause (see above).
Even if it did, the policy at the time of registration would prevail and unless that
had had a clause submitting the registrant to future changes, there'd be no handle.
So, my response to the question is "no", because there is no "documented policy" to
"knowingly and intentionally violate".
Whether the registrant gives up the domain name is a different issue.

> As mentioned, management of .INT is part of the IANA Functions contract, specifically section C.2.9.4 of http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf.

Thanks.

> Um, yeah.  1591 also says "Second level names in INT are registered by the PVM at ISI.EDU." Good luck with that. I personally find the cherry picking of RFC 1591 quite fascinating. The Internet has changed a bit since 1994 and it has never been clear to me that relying on that document in contravention to existing evolved policies makes a lot of sense.

For obvious reasons I will refrain from a discussion re: the applicability of RFC 1591
in the general case. For the INT TLD I do not see any cherry picking in action. I had only quoted
from the IANA's website.

> Until the IANA Functions transition, NTIA.  After the transition: that's an interesting question.

Thanks, that was one important point to raise.

Regards,
  Peter