[CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG)

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Thu Feb 26 14:30:07 UTC 2015


Hi,

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:
> 
> We can discuss the conditions around ICANNs administration of .int today, but responding to your comment : "I don't believe ICANN/IANA is in any competition with anyone to operate the int registry, because the USG specifies the operator and, as far as I know, hasn't put the operation out to bid"
> - I think it is expected from the community, at least from the GAC side, that the CWG discuss and have thoughts on what we see as the best solution for the .int post transition  - that is when US GOV no longer have the possibility to specify/change through a bid.
> 

I am prepared to believe that lots of people think the specification
of the operator of int is covered in this transition, but I don't
actually see that in any of the materials.  The current NTIA-ICANN
agreement is for the _operation_ of the int zone, but not for the
_policy_ of it.  That seems to me to be different from the root zone,
where the policies governing the root zone (all the co-ordination and
so on) are also vested in ICANN's policy side.

In other words, ICANN is performing the technical functions for int,
but not the registry operator function broadly construed.  This is
rather like (for example) org: PIR is the registry operator, and it
contracts to Afilias to perform the technical functions.  PIR could
pull that technical operations contract and give it to someone else.
Contrast this with (say) info, where ICANN has delegated operation of
that namespace (including policy) to Afilias.

I am entirely prepared to be wrong about this (I'm often wrong), but
if I am then I'd like a pointer to the text that shows it.

I am not, please note, suggesting that int isn't a problem.  I'm just
noting that it might be a problem that we don't have to solve in order
to undertake the transition.  Any burden we can shed at this late date
is an advantage to us, I suggest.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list