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

Fri Feb 27 01:43:30 UTC 2015

I'm completely in favor of eliminating issues from our list.  However, our
list is not the only one that matters. In the end, it's the NTIA's list
that matters,  I'm not sure how to resolve points where our issues differ,
but I'm fairly confident that the NTIA is not going to take something off
of their list simply because we took it off of ours.

On this point in particular, I'm curious how you came to the conclusion
that IANA is responsible for the technical operations only.and that all the
policy formation is reserved to the USG,based on your reading of C.2.9.4.

I don't see anything in C.2.9.4 that reserves policy to the USG.  It does
say that IANA shall operate the INT TLD "within the current registration
policies for the TLD".-- but it doesn't say where those policies are set.
It certainly doesn't reserve to itself the right to change those policies.
In any event, when the IANA Functions Contract goes away, so does C.2.9.4,
and any USG limitation on .INT policies goes away with it.  This would be a

The IANA website does deal with .INT policy in a section called ".INT
Policy and Procedures." http://www.iana.org/domains/int/policy  This in
turn cites to RFC 1591, which merely states that "[T]his domain is for
organizations established by international treaties, or international
databases." I don't see any indication here, either, that the USG sets
policy on .INT

SAC 067 is consistent with this, and states the following:
6.1.1 US Government Involvement in .INT TLD Management The NTIA has no role
in the day-to-day operation of the .INT domain. As .INT management is
considered to be an IANA Function, questions relating to the U.S.
government involvement in setting management policy—e.g., criteria for
obtaining a .INT domain—remain open.

Based on the foregoing, it seems to me that when the IANA Functions
Contract goes away, .INT is IANA's to do with what they will, subject only
to the parameters of RFC 1591.  If we are okay with that, fine.  If we
think it should be constrained as it was under the IANA Function Contract,
that's fine too.  But, I don't think we can merely eliminate the issue from
the list.

Greg

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>

-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150226/aae09eb2/attachment-0001.html>