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

ICANN inherited a number of INT registrations when it assumed management of the zone. Since 2005, at least, and probably since 1998, only treaty-based organizations who meet the other criteria have been given registrations, to the best of my knowledge.  I believe that ICANN uses an outside expert who has experience with UN treaty organizations to evaluate the requests for .INT registrations. 

-Barb

Sent from my mobile. 

> On Nov 13, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Peter Koch <pk at DENIC.DE> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:28:32AM -1000, David Conrad wrote:
>> 
>>> On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> wrote:
>>> The NCC should simply release ripe.int, as the historical reasons for
>>> it no longer apply. (FWIW, same goes for apnic.int. None of the other
>>> RIRs have similar domains.)
>> 
>> +1
> 
> this might be the exact wrong point in time.  The NCC likely does not fulfill
> the eligibility criterie laid out in <http://www.iana.org/domains/int/policy/>,
> but obviously the registrations in INT benefit from a genaral protection
> of confidence.  Also, the 'policy' document linked above does not provide
> for a revocation mechanism.
> 
> So, there is a registrant in INT interested in having key material published.
> What does it take to get INT sigend? What is the governing body? The 'policy'
> document bases itself on RFC 1591 but also says "The IANA no longer _grants_
> .int domain names [...]". While this particular issue is out of scope, the
> text may be read as if "the IANA" was acting with its own authority rather
> than being a registry operator bound by some policy set by the competent body.
> So, again: who is to be convinced to make INT signed?
> 
> -Peter
>