[CWG-Stewardship] .mil and .gov (and maybe .edu)

[Donna Austin]

I think Steve DelBianco suggested during one of the hearings that .mil and .gov could enter into a contract with ICANN. That would make them contracted parties and perhaps could be considered gTLD registries, but I expect that is some way off and considering them to be gTLDs would potentially be controversial.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of CW Lists
Sent: Thursday, 14 May 2015 2:58 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] .mil and .gov (and maybe .edu)

> Although not mentioned, .edu falls into roughly the same category.

Well, very roughly. Over the years, .edu has 'wobbled' between a strictly US University Domain and something else (ill defined) including lower levels of education in the US and an international dimension.
Before CWG goes further, someone should ask the Registry (¿Educause?) for a list of the current Registrants.

My personal expectation would be that we shall finish up classifying .edu as a normal gTLD with a registration policy. However, it is NOT an 'open' gTLD. In the era of on-line courses, what is 'education' needs to be clearly and narrowly defined. Meanwhile, many countries use an .sld in their ccTLD for their Universities. e.g. <http://www.soas.ac.uk/>

Regards

CW


On 14 May 2015, at 21:49, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:


In yesterday's Congressional hearings, the issue of .mil and .gov was brought up, due at least in part to the Defending Internet Freedom Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5737, and an opinion piece in US News & World Report. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/13/congress-should-ask-tough-questions-about-icann-domain-name-transition

The Defending Internet Freedom Act says (from the summary):
·         the U.S. government will be granted ownership of the ".gov" and ".mil" top-level domains and specified servers will be maintained in the United States;
A couple of the Representatives raised concerns that .gov and .mil​ would be vulnerable to a transfer away from the USG, and asked the witnesses if ownership (or perpetual control) of .gov and .mil by the US should be ensured in the transition. Several panelists answered in the affirmative and I don't believe any opposed.

We have not really discussed this issue.  I think it behooves us to deal with it.  Given the historical and current use of these two domains< I would not expect too much controversy.

Although not mentioned, .edu falls into roughly the same category.  We should consider if we should accord it similar treatment.

Greg
_______________________________________________
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/20150514/10244949/attachment-0001.html>