[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

[Milton L Mueller]

I don't agree with either of you and don't find your arguments convincing at all.
It's actually very simple to propose, as part of the transition, that this activity be discontinued. The actual transfer or redelegation can occur later, I agree that it is not required to happen during the stewardship transition. But we do need to have a position on what to do with it. 
It _is_ "broken" to have the root zone file editor running a TLD, especially one that connects it to intergovernmental organizations. 
Avoidance is not a wise approach to this issue

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock
> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 9:56 PM
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain
> 
> 
> > On May 17, 2015, at 1:04 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> wrote:
> > .INT is a can of worms.
> > I really think it would be unwise to open it now, at the 11th hour, as an
> afterthought, a few days before the end of the 2nd public consultation. I am
> of the view that if it ain't broke, don't attempt to fix it. I definitely to not see
> a link between it and the transition of stewardship itself.
> 
> I agree.  Even if there were some issue with .INT management, that's
> completely orthogonal to the process at hand.  Please let's not find new
> problems to solve before the big one is dealt with.
> 
>                                 -Bill
> 
> 
>