[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

Thu May 21 06:42:30 UTC 2015

Hi,

I remember this and remember endorsing the idea at the time.  There
might have been others who also endorsed the idea at that time.

I do not see how we can avoid doing this.

Perhaps doing this can be something that comes post transition if it can
be guaranteed in some way. but I believe we really need to take it into
account.  We can establish a process by which ti would be done
immediately following transition, including the consultation with the
registrants, the creation of a proposal, a community review and a decision.

We have been reminded several times in several ways by NTIA that we
could not just not deal with the .int issue.

avri

On 21-May-15 07:20, manning wrote:
> it did indeed come up on the list at least i know i brought it up.  discussion never happened in the DT, a summary judgement was issued and adopted.
>
> the proposal was/is to ASK those entities in the .INT space what they would like, going forward.  Would this group be hostile to such an effort?
>
>
> manning
> bmanning at karoshi.com
> PO Box 12317
> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
> 310.322.8102
>
>
>
> On 15May2015Friday, at 1:36, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of .INT, I am very surprised that there has been no discussion of IANA divesting .INT and putting it in someone else’s hands. While this is not a particularly urgent issue for the transition, it seems obvious to me that IANA, as the root zone file administrator, should not be in the business of running a TLD registry for international intergovernmental organizations. Why has this issue not surfaced?
>>
>> --MM
>>
>> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
>> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 4:09 PM
>> To: Greg Shatan
>> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team
>>
>> You are correct Greg.  Donna set me straight.  It would help if I read all of the DT-C notes.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:53 PM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck
>> Cc: CW Lists; Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team
>>
>> Chuck,
>>
>> I'm not too sure about that.  The punch list, asks the question "Composition: who will select the TLD representative that is not a ccTLD or gTLD registry?" so it seems to refer to a single representative, and one that is not a ccTLD or gTLD (regardless of membership in any ICANN structure).  The punch list further refers to Annex G, page 59.  Page 59 has the following list of proposed Registry members of the CSC:
>>
>> ·        2 x gTLD registry operators
>> ·        2 x ccTLD registry operators
>> ·        1 additional TLD representative not considered a ccTLD or gTLD registry operator such as the IAB for .ARPA could also be included in the minimum requirements but is not mandatory
>>
>> Based on these data points, it appears that DT C is discussing the third bullet point, which gives .ARPA as an example.  (The third bulletpoint also notes this "seat" is not "mandatory.")  Therefore, it does look like the reference is to that very limited universe cited by Christopher Wilkinson: .ARPA (IANA/IAB), .INT (IANA), .MIL (US Dept of Defense), .EDU (US Dept of Commerce/Dept of Education/Educause), .GOV (US General Services Admin).  (There are other "sTLDs" but these now seem to be considered gTLDs for all intents and purposes, such as .mobi, .travel, .xxx, etc.) 
>>
>> I don't see the harm in having a seat for these 5 (really 4, since as Martin notes, it would be odd to have the .INT operator (IANA) in the CSC) registries, since as Martin also notes, they do not otherwise have a direct voice or a natural channel through the GNSO or ccNSO.
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>> 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] On Behalf Of CW Lists
>> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:50 PM
>> To: Donna Austin; 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>
>> 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>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org Stewardship" <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>
>> 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" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>> Cc: "dt3 at icann.org" <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
>>
>> <image001.png>
>> 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
>> W  www.ariservices.com
>>
>> Follow us on Twitter
>>
>> 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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com