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 <p...@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 <do...@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 >
