[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Wed May 27 14:44:04 UTC 2015



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
> 
> 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.

Martin: you wrote the above in response to my question: 
"I don't understand why this is a matter for GAC discretion rather than CWG decision. Please explain."

It is obvious that you have not answered that question. Your answer merely presumes that it is GAC that sets the priorities. Please tell us _why_ it should be GAC's decision, and when and how we decided it would be. I recall the formation of a design team that had someone from GAC on it. I do not recall a decision by CWG to outsource the problem to GAC.  I could be wrong, though, so perhaps the chairs can answer this.  

> 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.

As noted in my prior response to Elise, your idea that ICANN's IANA department was a gTLD contractor that received INT through an established community policy process is known to be false. By removing IANA from this role, we are simply ending an anomalous and undesirable situation related to the IANA transition.  This has no implications for the right of "any organization" to run a TLD. It is about getting the root zone file editor out of the business of registry operation. 

> *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.

The GAC represents mostly national governments; IGOs are a relatively small part of its membership. Numerous people on this list, including Bill Manning, Avri and myself, have expressed strong support for consulting with the actual registrants of .INT, and it seems to be Elisa and you who are resisting this line of inquiry. Please tell me how your concept of "GAC discretion" would facilitate a voice for the actual registrants of INT?  Is GAC even being asked to consult them as part of our plan?

> 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.

I think it's clear from anyone reading this thread who is unable to relate to someone who sees things differently, and who is resorting to personal attacks as a result. I have simply asked you for better justifications for your positions. 

The odd thing about your response is that it is you who are offering us "policy on the fly" - you seem to have mentally delegated this to GAC and are willing to leave it to its discretion without any guidance from the group (CWG) that is explicitly authorized to develop a plan for the transition, a plan we have been told repeatedly must include .INT. I am not the only one questioning this. 

--MM



More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list