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

Thu Feb 26 19:48:21 UTC 2015

Olivier
I am not sure I understand what is high-stakes about managing .int. Perhaps you can explain. 
And please don't respond by saying that they will somehow leverage a TLD with ~60 registrants to "take over the Internet." ;-)

It is true that in the early days of creating ICANN, Postel, Mockapetris and others wanted to give it to ITU and the USG intervened to either stop it or it just got lost in the shuffle. That was a very different time, when a "new TLD" was a big deal and ITU was cooperating with ISOC in the first attempt to take over the DNS. It isn't relevant now. 

Today, if the ITU wants to do it, who cares? Note that I am not advocating ITU be given this domain nor am I advocating that they not be given it. I am just saying it doesn't matter much, and if you want to make a case that it does matter you will have to do more than wave the ITU bogeyman in our faces. 

If .int is in effect a "sponsored" TLD targeted at intergovernmental organizations, some UN-based agency seems to be a more appropriate home for it than the IANA. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:28 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller; Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison
> from the Board to CWG)
> 
> 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
> >