[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

[Milton L Mueller]

I`m a bit surprised about the assumption that any/all pre-existing TLDs would somehow require a multistakeholder approach to determining who the registry operator should be -  as in, .coop, .museum, etc, But again  - we shouldn’t try to solve this in the CWG.

MM: Elise, no one said all existing gTLDs should be redelegated by an MS process. Indeed, that is a rather fantastic construction. The reason .INT is anomalous is that its original delegation was completely outside of the ICANN process, or any established process. No one has provided a credible argument as to why the root zone administrator should be running a TLD and there have been many unrefuted arguments as to why it should not be; figuring out what to do with INT is about that. In other words, getting.INT out of IANA as an extension of the transition process has nothing to do with any sponsored TLD.  It is administrative cleanup work.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150527/3ec50326/attachment-0001.html>