[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

Thu May 14 17:42:56 UTC 2015

Christopher,

The example used was .arpa but we also discussed the non-gTLD US registries .mil, .gov, .edu.  And as you say, .int would also be a candidate, but in view of its operator, that might be a bit of an anomaly!

They are a class of customers who otherwise would not have a direct voice.  As you said in your February e-mail, “These are not gTLDs, as the reference to .int confirms. For the sake of completeness, it would not be appropriate to ignore them.”

We did have discussions about non-members of the ccNSO and RySG, but if I remember correctly these would be included in the two registry operator classes.

Donna or other members of DT-C might be able to add more (or correct).

Hope this helps

Martin

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: 14 May 2015 17:58
To: CW Lists; Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

Christopher,

I am not on DT-C so I cannot speak for them, but my understanding is that they were talking about TLD registries that are not members of the ccNSO or RySG.  Regardless, I think you raise an important issue that should be considered.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of CW Lists
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:50 PM
To: Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> IANA
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

Dear Donna, Dear Friends and Colleagues:

With reference to the DT-C notes on the 'Punch List', attached, for which I thank you, allow me a short comment on Point 11: CSC Composition.

The concept of a TLD that is not a ccTLD or a gTLD is rather obscure. Many would consider that there are none such. However, internal evidence suggests that CWG considers that there are some.

In which case, to the best of my knowledge, the only candidates are .int, .gov, .edu and .mil. or .arpa,
thus the DT-C comments under point 11, would appear to be a rather odd circumlocution, if the intention is to ensure that the USG-based TLDs, or the ICANN-based TLDs, would somehow have an 'extra' seat on the CSC.

I drew this question to your attention in my mail, below, of 26 February, but did not receive a reply.
Having reviewed in some detail the most recent version of the CWG transition proposal, I still find no reference to the above TLDs (with the exception of .int)

Indeed, if it is the CWG position that these TLDs should be somehow 'grandfathered' outside the IANA transition, then may I suggest that it behoves someone - not excluding NTIA - to say so clearly, now.
Otherwise there will be a lingering misunderstanding that would sit uncomfortably with the underlying proposition that the IANA transition is to the global multistakeholder Internet community.

Regards

CW

Begin forwarded message:

From: CW Lists <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Proposal Version 2.0
Date: 26 Feb 2015 13:50:44 GMT+01:00
To: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk>>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>

Jonathan, Lise:

Thankyou for another draft magnum opus. As you say there are several aspects to be completed in greater detail.

Meanwhile, may I point out that under:
I. The Community’s Use of the IANA

- and indeed in the whole document,  there is no reference to the TLDs: .gov, .mil, .edu and .arpa.
These are not gTLDs, as the reference to .int confirms. For the sake of completeness, it would not be appropriate to ignore them.

Regards

CW

Begin forwarded message:

From: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin at ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin at ariservices.com>>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team
Date: 13 May 2015 19:05:12 GMT+02:00
To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
Cc: "dt3 at icann.org<mailto:dt3 at icann.org>" <dt3 at icann.org<mailto:dt3 at icann.org>>

All

As noted on Tuesday’s call, DT-C had a call to address DT-C items on Sidley’s punch list.

Attached are our comments.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thanks,

Donna

[cid:image001.png at 01D08E73.D7B87E40]
DONNA AUSTIN
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager

ARI REGISTRY SERVICES
Melbourne | Los Angeles
P  +1 310 890 9655
P  +61 3 9866 3710
E  donna.austin at ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin at ariservices.com>
W  www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/>

Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices>

The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150514/8931cf66/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150514/8931cf66/image001-0001.png>