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

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

Replying to several messages at once to reduce list traffic.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:29:21PM +0000, 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. 
> 

As I was arguing upthread, it _is_ in the contract, but in a strictly
limited way: the technical operations only.  That's what's in C.2.9.4.
In that section, all the policy formation is reserved to the USG:

    The Contractor shall operate the INT TLD within the current
    registration policies for the TLD. Upon designation of a successor
    registry by the Government, if any, the Contractor shall cooperate
    with NTIA to facilitate the smooth transition of operation of the
    INT TLD. Such cooperation shall, at a minimum, include timely
    transfer to the successor registry of the then-current top-level
    domain registration data. The Contractor shall also implement
    modifications in performance of the IANA functions as needed upon
    mutual agreement of the parties.

It seems to me that this WG therefore can nicely side-step this issue
by noting that IANA is currently the technical operator but not the
policy authority.  So as part of the transition, we can state that the
pre-existing rules remain in effect (no policy changes, and if the USG
designates a new registry then ICANN will cheerfully help).  Moreover,
if NTIA believes that the policy authority is also part of this
transfer, then ICANN will follow the same policy while consulting with
existing int registrants to ask them for a new policy authority.  No
alterations in int registration policy will be undertaken without the
(what?  Rough consensus?  Majority preference?  I don't care) of all
int registrants.

That dodges the problem of getting a complete solution to all the
policy issues for int while respecting the NTIA statements and
direction.  Moreover, it kicks this problem down the road a bit and
thereby allows us not to have to hammer out all the details right now.
It is consistent with what everyone wants -- ongoing security and
stability -- while yet leaving NTIA an option as to which way we are
to understand the existing agreement.  Moreover, it's consistent with
the multistakeholder approach, and we can even enumerate all the
existing affected stakeholders since the zone is so small.  (Even if
we extended the affected class to all the potential registrants, the
list is still entirely manageable in size.  So there is one
potentially fraught question, and that is whether to use the bigger or
smaller class here.)

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 06:27:51PM +0100, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 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

I suggest that the above approach neatly avoids us having to debate
whether management of int can pass to ITU without violating any of the
NTIA's directives on this issue.  If the ITU can convince all the
relevant stakeholders (however defined -- see above), then they can
run it.  If not, then not.  And maybe they don't want it any more.


On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:11:43PM +0100, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:

> Strickling has repeatedly said that some solution should be presented
> for the .INT situation. What the exact problem needs to be solved is,
> I don't know but I suspect it has to do with the fact that IANA is now
> the registry and the underlining policy doesn't has a real home nor
> versight.

I agree, and I'm suggesting that the ambiguity is something we should
take advantage of in order to reduce the "must do" items before the
transition.

Please note that I'm not suggesting this isn't important or something
that ought to be left forever or anything like that.  I'm just saying
that, given all the things that we have to achieve in roughly four
months, we had better figure out how to eliminate issues from our list
whenever it is practical and safe to do so.  This is, I submit, such a
case; so let's take advantage of that.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com