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

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Hello all,

actually the Management of .INT is a high stakes political game.

The ITU has affirmed for many years that they wish to be managing .INT

Two references:

- Response from the ITU on Response to Request for Comments on the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions; National
Telecommunications and Informat
ion Administration, Docket No. 110207099–1099–01, RIN 0660–XA23;
published in the Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February
25, 2011, page 10569
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/ITU_E910_IANA%20NOI%20response_30-03-2011_final.pdf

- ITU Recommendation E.910
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.910-200512-I

Given this political hot potato, would it be wise for ICANN to simply
divest itself of it within 2 years or should it hold on to it?

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 26/02/2015 16:29, Milton L Mueller 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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>