[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

Thu May 21 19:07:23 UTC 2015

I am quite troubled by one question here, and beyond its application to the
.INT question:

"For so specialised a TLD, is this really something for wide community
decision - stakeholders who are not stakeholders (or interested parties) in
this decision?"

The idea that stakeholders must be "stakeholders (or interested parties" in
a particular decision in order to participate in a process really stands
the multistakeholder model on its head.  If we exclude certain sectors of
stakeholders from a process, it really cannot be called multistakeholder
any longer (and as Avri pointed out on a recent call, even an imbalanced
multistakeholder group deviates from the multistakeholder model and may not
be truly multistakeholder).

I think we need to proceed with extreme caution whenever there is a
suggestion that certain stakeholder groups do not hold a sufficient "stake"
or are not competent or qualified to participate in a particular issue or
process or group.  By definition, the multistakeholder model involves
stakeholders coming from diverse backgrounds, skillsets and concerns.  This
cannot be denied without compromising the legitimacy of a
"multistakeholder" process or group.

The idea that being an "interested party" should be a qualification for
participating in a decision causes even greater concern.  If anything, this
could be deemed a disqualification, since a party with an interest in the
outcome will tend to seek an outcome beneficial to that interest, not the
community's interest or the public interest.  For a variety of reasons, we
do not operate that way -- being an interested party does not qualify one
from participating in a multistakeholder process relating to that
interest.  This makes it even more important that a truly inclusive
multistakeholder group be assembled to consider and resolve issues
regardless of whose ox is being gored, to balance the self-interest of the
interested parties and to assure the integrity of the process.

Greg

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
wrote:

> I'm ok with a post-transition process.  I'm less ok with us plucking
> processes out of the air...
>
> We need to think about who asks what of whom.  And once we have the input,
> we also need to think about who makes the decision.  But is that a general
> discussion or just for the GAC to devise and report back on its decision?
> And reporting back could be based on when they agree to a collective
> decision - I'm not ok with telling the GAC that it needs to do something by
> a particular date and in a particular manner.
>
> Asking registrants about what will essentially be a redelegation process
> is not really an existing criterion for a gTLD, is it?  (It could be an
> interesting way of doing it, but I'm not sure that it is without its
> problems.)  And will the registrant necessarily be the person authorised to
> give a view in the organisation?
>
> For so specialised a TLD, is this really something for wide community
> decision - stakeholders who are not stakeholders (or interested parties) in
> this decision?
>
> Finally, have we agreed that the IANA functions operator should not be
> running a TLD registry?  If so, I must have missed that
> discussion/decision.  Bearing in mind that they have been providing the
> role for a number of years, this seems to me to be a decision that should
> be clearly justified.
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: 21 May 2015 16:32
> To: avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150521/d0836d1f/attachment-0001.html>