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

[Burr, Becky]

I think it is very important to understand from the IETF and NTIA whether
any of the test bed functionality remains in .int.  Many were moved to the
repurposed .arpa (Karen Rose will have to remind me what it stands for) -
but I do not know if all of them have been moved.


J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  /
becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz






On 2/26/15, 10:29 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>Hi, Andrew
>Fiona Alexander of NTIA has made a frequent point of telling us that .int
>is currently in the IANA contract (C.2.9.4) and a complete proposal will
>have to decide what to do with it.
>
>I personally believe that ICANN and/or IANA should get rid of this
>function. It's not central to their missions and I'd like to maintain a
>clean line between the root zone registry and TLD registry operators.
>
>By the same token I think the stakes are pretty low on this one and if we
>just said "it stays with ICANN" most planets would remain in their
>orbits. 
>
>A better middle ground might be to specify, as part of the transition,
>that ICANN will come up with a plan to divest itself of it within 2 years.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
>> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:30 AM
>> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A
>>liaison
>> from the Board to CWG)
>> 
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> 
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifz
>>m6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=AuQ1rx8D5cYW10nh9k0SGxhr9WPy9cipwSDb
>>MoYmvFw&s=c_5VV9gYVbPZ8bltMitDTfwoNDAhEiUBeghBQyFv3cg&e=
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6
>X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=AuQ1rx8D5cYW10nh9k0SGxhr9WPy9cipwSDbMoY
>mvFw&s=c_5VV9gYVbPZ8bltMitDTfwoNDAhEiUBeghBQyFv3cg&e=