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

Thu Feb 26 19:33:32 UTC 2015

One might actually ask the parties registered under .INT as to what they would like to see.  I’m sure they a) are fully invested in the outcome, and
b)  might actually have opinions that matter.   I can not see why the IETF or the RIRs should have a say in the matter.

/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102

On 26February2015Thursday, at 11:20, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org> wrote:

> Eduardo,
> 
> In regards to .INT, might I suggest the question get asked to the other communities - Numbers (RIR's) & Protocols (IETF). They might have identified the issue as well and may have possible way forward.
> 
> 
> regards
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> --
> Robert Guerra
> Phone: +1 416-893-0377
> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org
> PGP Keys : https://keybase.io/rguerra
> 
> On 26 Feb 2015, at 14:07, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
> 
>> Can ISOC manage it?
>> 
>> -ed
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
>> subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
>> addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
>> disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
>> mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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