[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

[Martin Boyle]

Milton,

1.  I do not think it is for the CWG to tell the GAC how to prioritise.  If GAC sees a TLD for Inter-governmental organisations as more or less of a priority than the myriad of other decisions that ICANN is thrusting its way, so be it.

2.  There is only one TLD solely focussed on inter-governmental organisations.  Others might offer, but are you really saying that .int is a gTLD, because if so I'd like to see GNSO policy relating to redelegations of existing gTLDs and of the clear reasons as behind removing the delegation from ICANN without due process.  For the moment, I really think that the line you are using is tenuous.  If I'm wrong, then we need to think more widely about the right to run a gTLD by any organisation involved in the DNS infrastructure.

3.  It does depend on who sets the policy and when that was set.  I think we need GAC to tell us whether there is a better solution.  Remember this is a gTLD serving inter-governmental organisation *only* so I do not see why the decision on operators involves other organisations other than interested parties - the members of the IGOs.  Any more than I would expect the Catholic Church to have a significant say over the policies for .gay.

4.  "... somewhat plausible rationalizations for not doing anything, you are not providing any positive reasons why we SHOULD leave things as they are. Is there some stronger reason you are not telling us about why you are resisting this?"  I love the condescending tone you adopt to anyone who sees things differently to you, Milton.  Yes, I have a strong aversion to policy on the fly just because it sounds plausible. Sorry, that's just the way I feel.  Blame it on to many years working in the UK government - old habits die hard.

Hope this helps


Martin



-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: 27 May 2015 15:44
To: Martin Boyle; 'avri at acm.org'; 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain



> -----Original Message-----
> 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.

I don't understand why this is a matter for GAC discretion rather than CWG decision. Please explain.

> 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).

Your assumption that there is no competitive element is arguable. .INT is a gTLD that fits into the mold of a sponsored gTLD and might be considered a resource by any number of potential registries or cooperative set of registrants. There is no reason for IANA to be running it, especially post-transition. 

> 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.

Any entity that runs a TLD is by definition a policy maker for the community that uses the TLD. Let's have IANA stick to its knitting. 

Martin, while you are coming up with somewhat plausible rationalizations for not doing anything, you are not providing any positive reasons why we SHOULD leave things as they are. Is there some stronger reason you are not telling us about why you are resisting this? 

--MM