[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

Fri May 22 16:28:42 UTC 2015

So Greg, I would conclude from your logic below that all ccTLD delegations and redelegations should not exclude anyone not from the country/territory.
Is that right?

--MM

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 3:07 PM
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: Milton L Mueller; avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto:avri at acm.org>; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:bmanning at karoshi.com>
> > PO Box 12317
> > Marina del Rey, CA 90295
> > 310.322.8102<tel:310.322.8102>
> >
> >
> >
> > On 15May2015Friday, at 1:36, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto: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>
> >> [mailto: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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<mailto: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>
> >> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk>>, Jonathan Robinson
> >> <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>
> >> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> Stewardship"
> >> <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/a60b9dfa/attachment-0001.html>