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

Wed May 13 13:34:36 UTC 2015

Forwarding on behalf of Richard Hill.

On 5/13/15, 3:24 AM, "Richard Hill" <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

>Grace: please forward to CWG-Stewardship, since I cannot post to that list
>directly.
>==========================================================================
>==
>========
>
>Dear David,
>
>Thank you for the thoughtful comments and please see my embedded comments
>below.
>
>Best,
>Richard
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at icann.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 23:47
>> To: Richard Hill
>> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Further input to CWG-Stewardship on
>> .int
>> 
>> [Sorry for the slow response -- bit buried right now]
>> 
>> Richard,
>> 
>>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?
>
>I seem to recall that an ICANN staff member participated in at least one
>of
>the meeting of the editor's group, but I may be wrong about that.  ICANN
>staff did for sure send comments on early drafts and those comments were
>incorporated in the final version.
>
>> 
>> 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.
>
>Both the workshop and the editor's group were open and several
>organizations
>provided input. Prior to the formal ITU approval process, the draft was
>circulated to all UN agencies.  The draft was formally approved by the
>highest UN executive body that is competent to consider the matters,
>namely
>the chief executive officers of the various UN agencies.
>
>The ITU approval process that was used is the so-called Traditional
>Approval
>Process, in which Member States are notified of the intended approval and
>have 8-9 months in which to express objections.  The recommendation is
>approved only if there are no objections.  That was the case for E.910.
>
>So it was formally approved both by the heads of the UN agencies, and by
>the
>UN Member States (who are all members of ITU).
>
>>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.
>
>Depends what you mean by bottom-up.  The process strove to get inputs from
>all the entities that are, or thought they should be, eligible for a
>domain
>name under ".int".
>
>>For
>> example, of the 180+ current treaty based organizations registered in
>> .INT, how many were actually substantively involved in the development
>> of
>> E.910?
>
>See above.
>
>> 
>> 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. 
>
>In my view, the directly impacted parties were engaged back in 2004.
>Whether E.910 still corresponds to what they want is of course an open
>question, but my hunch is that it does, because the main purposes of E.910
>were to clarify the following:
>
>1) Organizations can obtain domain names corresponding to their acronym in
>the 6 official UN languages, with the caveat that Arabic, Chinese, and
>Russian would only be available when technically possible (IDN).
>
>2) The registry for ".int" could charge for its services.
>
>3) A new mechanism (different from the current one) was agreed to resolve
>the "corner cases", that is, cases when an organization thinks it
>qualifies
>for a name under ".int", but it is no obvious whether it does or does not.
>
>Some specific cases of (3) were one of the drivers of the initiative to
>develop E.910.
>
>>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?
>
>Yes, I think that it is strange that some international organizations
>don't
>have domain names that correspond to their French and Spanish acronyms.
>
>Obviously there are other ways to resolve that than to refer to  E.910,
>but,
>as outlined above, the intent of E.910 was to clarify a number of issues
>that had arisen in the past. I suspect that those issues are still
>relevant.
>
>> 
>> 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: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150513/c7d6e19d/smime.p7s>