[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

[Milton L Mueller]

Elise,

Thanks for clarifying where you stand on this.

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 see any 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.

I don't mind this kind of deferral as long as there is some engagement in this group with the proposition that IANA should not be operating a TLD. Could we add to this proposed statement something like this:

"CWG notes that in ICANN's founding documents the operation of a TLD registry was not considered to be one of the "coordinated functions" to be provided by the IANA functions operator."

I would also like to amend your last sentence by changing "post transition" to "immediately after the implementation of the IANA stewardship ransition."

This will make it clear that we are talking not about the entire CCWG set of reforms, and that we are eager to see this change happen as soon as possible rather than pushing it indefinitely into the future.

Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150522/e2991d0d/attachment.html>