[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

[Martin Boyle]

That might be appropriate, Chuck, but at this stage isn't it just assessing what existing policy might be implicated/at stake?  

Given the nature of .int, the real assessment has to be in the GAC, but that needs to be done in the light of what policy already exist and what might be impacted.  I'm not sure I'd want unintentional (or at least unexplained) over-turning of policy.

Just at the moment I fear that we are (re)writing policy on the fly and that worries me.  Setting rules for a tightly defined TLD like .int could certainly have implications for some gTLDs and I can just imagine the possible attempts to scope creep to ccTLDs.

Martin 



-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
Sent: 26 May 2015 16:31
To: Martin Boyle; avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

Would a cross community WG be more appropriate than a GNSO WG?  It seems so to me.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 5:13 AM
To: avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

I'm not convinced that it is:  the term "immediately" seems to me to be a bit amiss.  

By all means let's defer this to a discussion post implementation, but I think it would be for the GAC to chose how soon after transition (resources and prioritisation are for them) it would wish to carry this out.

In addition, though, we seem to be making two fundamental "policy" assumptions that I think could be seen as having very wide implications.

1. We are proposing the redelegation of a (narrow remit - one could see it as a community-type) gTLD.  What are the rules for doing this for community gTLDs?  Are we following them?

2. We seem to be arguing that ICANN should not run a TLD, although the bylaws do not actually appear to apply in this case (no anti-competitive element).  As policy makers for gTLDs, should ICANN have a role in running one of the "regulated" entities?  I'm not sure that really applies here - it is one of the reasons for PTI to separate the IANA operational element from the policy side.  The argument could be that those operating the elements of the infrastructure should not also be a customer of the infrastructure, in which case does this happen for other key DNS infrastructure operators?

Before the review, don't we need to think about the justification for the review?  That assessment process could start immediately after the transition in a process that probably belongs in the GNSO but with the ccNSO, the root server operators and the root-zone maintainer having very clear interests.


MB


-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 23 May 2015 05:59
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

Hi,

Seems like a good formulation.

avri


On 22-May-15 19:53, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review 
> from relevant stakeholders immediately after the implementation of the 
> IANA stewardship transition.
>
>  
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
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