[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

[Greg Shatan]

I think handing this off to the GAC without participation from stakeholders
(including but not limited to interested parties) is not just optically
poor, it is substantively poor.

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:24 AM, manning <bmanning at karoshi.com> wrote:

> What is unclear was the distinct offer/request by several members of this
> list to participate in DT-H discussion and as far as I can tell, no DT-H
> meeting was
> ever held, no participation for the larger community, no participation
> from registrants in the .INT space,  only email to the GAC.
>
> I suppose that running the design team in such a way as to exclude
> participation by interested parties is acceptable, but the optics look poor
> from here.
>
> manning
> bmanning at karoshi.com
> PO Box 12317
> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
> 310.322.8102
>
>
>
> On 22May2015Friday, at 7:30, Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear CWG colleagues,  - Lise and Jonathan
> >
> > Following the discussion on .int on the CWG list , I like to comment.
> >
> > On earlier process:
> >
> > NTIA has previously asked the CWG for considerations around the faith of
> the  .int domain, -  as part of the development of a IANA transition
> proposal,  - so the topic is not “invented” by members of the CWG. I was
> set as DT lead on .int /DT-H because of the obvious interest for
> GAC/governments in beeing active part of the discussions on the future
> administration of the .int. domain.
> >
> > The .int case was early on decided to be a priority 2 subject in the
> CWG, and a majority of the very few voices that was involved in the
> discussion on .int meant that it was as unnecessary to give direction for a
> solution on .int as part of the CWG proposal. As a consequence there has
> not been set aside time in the CWG for discussion or debate on .int during
> F2F in Istanbul or later at the CWG conference calls. .int was mentioned
> during our CWG meeting #38, were it came a request from the CWG Chairs to
> the GAC members/participants in the CWG for a proposal on text on the .int.
> A response to this was forwarded to the CWG chairs and the CWG as a whole
> on the 16th of April.
> >
> > "Dear Lise and Jonathan
> >
> > I learned from my colleagues in the GAC that it was mentioned on meeting
> #38 in the intensive workdays that you are waiting for text from the GAC
> members/participants on .int /DT-H.
> >
> > From what I understood from our previous meetings in the CWG,  - it was
> decided by the chairs/you that you would give feedback to the whole CWG on
> your priorities on the DT priority 2 subjects, and come back to the CWG on
> this. I see that Olivier has asked the question about the status of the DT
> priority 2 items today on email today also.
> >
> > Anyway - I have attached a fact sheet on .int  that has been discussed
> between the GAC participants/members in the CWG. This fact sheet is meant
> to document/sum up the status quo for .int, and be the basis for a very
> simple advise from CWG on .int - referencing directly to RFC 1591, and
> stating that provided there is no policy change under .int done by
> ICANN/IANA, - there is no need for any changes in the management of the
> .int domain in conjunction with the transition.
> >
> > Elise”
> >
> > I like to underline that I have forwarder this email/suggestion to the
> GAC list, - asking if any GAC members have any comment or like to give
> suggestion for another advice on .int for the transition itself. I have not
> received any comments re alternative text.
> >
> > On the way forward/final proposal:
> >
> > I agree that we shouldn’t try to design the future solution on .int
> administration in the final  CWG proposal  - from the discussion online we
> couldn’t do it even if we tried - there is obviously too much to debate
> even in initial discussions on legitimate interest, relevant stakeholders,
> inclusive process for the making of a proposal and so - and the CWG is not
> in a position to decide on these issues. So I would like to repeat earlier
> GAC member/participant input on .int. case, and suggest that we say
> something like this:
> >
> > CWG has considered the .int domain, and concluded that provided there is
> no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA we don’t seeany need for
> changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the
> transition. Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to
> review from relevant stakeholders post transition.
> >
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg
> > Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative
> > Networks Department
> > Norwegian Communications Authority
> > e-mail: ekl at nkom.no
> > Mobile: +47 90190947
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20150522/ae7b45e3/attachment.html>