[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

[Greg Shatan]

I agree with a CCWG rather than a GNSO WG if and when we deal with .int.
And I agree that this should not be done on the fly.  This is not a house
burning down.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150526/6b1a3052/attachment-0001.html>