[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

Thu May 21 15:32:14 UTC 2015

I endorsed the idea, too. 

As best I can tell, the issue has been more or less swept under the rug by the statement "leave it to the GAC." 
I have no objection in principle to affording GAC a major role in developing a recommendation for .INT, but I think the CWG as a whole should not be just "leaving it" to them; we have the responsibility to develop some guidelines as to how they should deal with it - e.g., do they actually ask the registrants what they want? Do we instruct them that IANA FO should not be running a TLD registry? Do they develop a recommendation and bring it back to the CWG? On what timetable? 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 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.