[CWG-Stewardship] FW: Further input to CWG-Stewardship on .int

[David Conrad]

[Sorry for the slow response -- bit buried right now]

Richard,

Thanks very much for this, in particular the pointers to the historical
documents -- I've looked for those in the past. Fascinating stuff,
particularly for folks like myself who find early Internet history
interesting. 

As I joined ICANN (the first time) in Nov 2005, the events you provided
pointers to were a bit before my time. My understanding is that while
ICANN was indeed involved in the workshop that preceded the E.int work
within the ITU, ICANN was not actually involved in the E.int work that led
to E.910 itself (I know I wasn't). Is this incorrect?

Also, since I wasn't involved in the E.int work, I'm unaware of how much
input or involvement the international treaty organizations currently
registered in .INT (other than the ITU obviously) had in the formulation
of the requirements documented in E.910. My reading of E.910 suggests a
level of top-down presumption that, notwithstanding the historical
documents you reference, does not necessary correspond to the bottom-up
methodologies now used in the definition of TLD registry policies. For
example, of the 180+ current treaty based organizations registered in
.INT, how many were actually substantively involved in the development of
E.910?

Given how the management of the namespace has evolved in the nearly a
decade since E.910 was published by the ITU, and in particular, how TLD
registry policies are now generally developed via multi-stakeholder
processes in a bottom-up fashion, I'm still unsure whether it makes a
whole lot of sense to make a change without engaging the directly impacted
parties. Further, while it is true that .INT is an IANA function and, as
such, will be impacted by the transition of the stewardship of that
function from NTIA, I've not gotten the impression that there is a whole
lot of pressure to change from the current status quo in terms of
day-to-day operations. Do you see things differently?

Regards,
-drc

-----Original Message-----
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 7:36 AM
To: CWG Mailing List <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Cc: Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Further input to CWG-Stewardship on .int

>Forwarding this message on behalf of Richard Hill.
>
>On 5/4/15, 5:47 AM, "Richard Hill" <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
>>Please forward this to CWG-Stewardship.
>>
>>I note David Conrad's comment regarding E.910 at:
>>
>>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-April/002863.html
>>
>>David says:
>>
>>"Well, it might have been the aspiration of folks who attended the E.int
>>(later E.910) ITU meetings in Geneva (which did not include ICANN staff
>>to
>>my knowledge < I was general manager of IANA at that time so I probably
>>would've known)."
>>
>>Actually the workshop that kicked off the work was co-hosted by ITU-T and
>>ICANN, see:
>>
>>  http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/int/icann.html
>>
>>It was co-chaired by the President and CEO of ICANN and a senior official
>>from WIPO, see:
>>
>>  http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/int/index.html
>>
>>As I recall, a member of the ICANN staff participated. ICANN provided an
>>input to the workshop.
>>
>>Further discussions were held in an editor's group that was open to all,
>>and
>>whose outputs were publicly available.  See for example:
>>
>>  http://www.itu.int/md/T01-SG02-040518-TD-WP1-0167/en
>>
>>As I recall, a member of the ICANN staff participated in at least some of
>>those meetings.
>>
>>"That was a long time ago and many things have changed. I personally
>>don't
>>think it should have any bearing on how .INT is dealt with
>>post-transition."
>>
>>I doubt that the requirements of "organizations established by
>>international
>>treaties" have changed since 2005, so I don't understand why the
>>requirements formulated by those organizations, and set forth in E.910,
>>should not have any bearing in how .INT is dealt with.
>>
>>Anybody who is interested in the history of .int might wish to have a
>>look
>>at the documents at:
>>
>>  http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/int/documents/index.html
>>
>>and at:
>>
>>  http://www.itu.int/md/T01-SG02-040518-TD-WP1-0168/en
>>
>>Best,
>>Richard
>>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150512/1e5e6152/smime.p7s>