[cabfpub] Ballot 112 - Replace Definition of "Internal Server Name" with "Internal Name"

[Gervase Markham]

On 21/03/14 15:05, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> The clause regarding revocation still remains unchanged. That is, the
> event for revocation is still triggered by ICANN contracting a domain,
> which is why I was not bothered by the change and willing to endorse.

OK. My mistake was assumin that 11.1.4 actually used the definition of 
Internal Server Name in the way I thought, but it doesn't.

> I think we're approaching the problem from different angles, but with
> the same goal. I prefer the current language because 11.1.4 covers the
> transition period of contracted-but-not-delegated and revocation, and
> the proposed modification above ensures that it is only names in the
> public namespace that are eligible for "split-horizon" considerations.

Yes. I'm now happy with the current wording.

Gerv