[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

[Alan Greenberg]

At this stage, as I understan things, .int is most definitely outside 
of GNSO scope. Alan

At 26/05/2015 12:44 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Martin,
>
>I also oppose writing policy on the fly.  My main point is that when 
>policy is developed for .int it will be a community issue not just the GNSO.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 12:29 PM
>To: Gomes, Chuck; avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain
>
>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
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship