<p dir="ltr">On 9 Feb 2016 6:19 p.m., "Nigel Roberts" <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> It's pretty clear that there will be an accountability issue, and a conflict of interest regarding ICANN operating a registry,<br>
><br>
SO: If I may ask, who is managing .INT at the moment and does it posit a conflict of interest at the moment?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Secondly, at the moment I understand that an and organisation can serve as both Registry and Registrar (if he/she meets the requirement) does that posit conflict as well?</p>
<p dir="ltr">I personally have no problem and don't care about who runs .INT but I continue to wonder why that will be tied to ICANN accountability and most importantly why this should be within the remit of the CCWG to determine.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
.<br>
><br>
> This has to go into WS2<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 09/02/16 16:53, Martin Boyle wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> The footnote to paragraph 173 (1173 of the consolidated proposal from the ICG on page 64), repeated on page 53, says, "The CWG-Stewardship has considered the .INT domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .INT done by ICANN/IANA the CWG-Stewardship does not see any need for changes in the management of the .INT domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .INT domain should be subject to review post transition." There was no suggestion that this needed to be in WS2 - I certainly thought that this was more something for the first review of the IANA functions operation under the new regime - it is not an ICANN enhanced accountability issue, but it is one of the IANA functions for which stewardship is being transferred by NTIA.<br>
>><br>
>> Leaving aside questions of belief (Milton's assertion that IANA should not be running a TLD, mine that there is no conflict), the hand-over of the .int TLD (which carries no policy-development responsibilities for ICANN and/or IANA) to a new operator is not trivial (and has been a delicate issue since at least ITU Plenipot 2002 Marrakech). And the CWG-Stewardship discussion showed no clear consensus for keep or divest. Hence the CWG conclusion that we did not need to make a decision (one way or another) and that a more relaxed timescale to deciding whether to require IANA to divest (and if so, what process to undertake to get there) was probably the only one that we'd all agree to.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L<br>
>> Sent: 09 February 2016 15:13<br>
>> To: Nigel Roberts <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a>><br>
>> Cc: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers<br>
>><br>
>> I share that concern, that is why I wanted a commitment to divest made during the transition.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>> From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a>]<br>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 9:52 AM<br>
>>> To: Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>><br>
>>> Cc: Martin Boyle <<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk">Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk</a>>; accountability-cross-<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:community@icann.org">community@icann.org</a><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with<br>
>>> respect to rood servers<br>
>>><br>
>>> I'm generally content with this approach.<br>
>>><br>
>>> But I am concerned that in leaving this to WS2, it will be overlooked.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 09/02/16 14:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> .INT was discussed at length.<br>
>>>> The results were inconclusive; many people, including myself, agreed<br>
>>>> with Nigel that IANA should not be running a TLD and wanted to<br>
>>>> divest .INT<br>
>>><br>
>>> Others argued that divestiture of .INT was not directly related to the<br>
>>> replacement of NTIA's stewardship role and the potentially thorny<br>
>>> issue of who to give it to should therefore be left to another time.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I think there was an agreement to leave it to the future but also<br>
>>>> general<br>
>>><br>
>>> agreement that IANA should not be running a TLD.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>>> From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf<br>
>>>>> Of Martin Boyle<br>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 7:41 AM<br>
>>>>> To: Nigel Roberts <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a>>; accountability-cross-<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:community@icann.org">community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role<br>
>>>>> with respect to rood servers<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Nigel,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> .int was discussed in the CWG-Stewardship - I'd need to look up<br>
>>>>> what the conclusion was, but I'd note that .int is considered as<br>
>>>>> one of the IANA roles and the CWG considered that it was up to<br>
>>>>> subsequent discussion to consider whether the status quo needed to<br>
>>>>> be reassessed in a post-implementation process.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Martin<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>>> From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf<br>
>>>>> Of Nigel Roberts<br>
>>>>> Sent: 09 February 2016 10:10<br>
>>>>> To: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role<br>
>>>>> with respect to rood servers<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> In terms of accountability, ICANN needs strongly to consider separation.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> It cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher, or perhaps a better<br>
>>>>> metaphor, both referee and player.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I submit to the WG that it needs to consider a plan to transition<br>
>>>>> its roles as registry operator (.INT, .ARPA) and as root server<br>
>>>>> operator, so as to remove any appearance of bias in its 'co-ordination' role.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> (See McGonnell v UK for the definition of apparent bias).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 09/02/16 09:18, Bruce Tonkin wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Hello All,<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of<br>
>>>>>> responsibilities<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> related to root servers.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> coordination role and the other relates to the operational role.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> ICANN:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the<br>
>>>>>> DNS root name server system."<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS<br>
>>>>>> root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and<br>
>>>>>> stability<br>
>>><br>
>>> remit."<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Regards,<br>
>>>>>> Bruce Tonkin<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi</a><br>
>>>>>> ty<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:Community@icann.org">Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit</a><br>
>>>>> y _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:Community@icann.org">Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit</a><br>
>>>>> y<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
>><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</p>