[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

[Lindeberg, Elise]

"Given that, leaving things this way until after the transition (and saying that's what's going to happen) seems entirely reasonable.  It's also achievable immediately, which is another good reason to prefer such an approach over others.  We have _far_ too many loose ends not to tie this one off as quickly as possible" - Andrew, agree 

Elise

-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] På vegne av Andrew Sullivan
Sendt: 27. mai 2015 16:53
Til: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 02:23:16PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> MM: Elise, no one said all existing gTLDs should be redelegated by an 
>MS process. Indeed, that is a rather fantastic construction.

Several people do appear to be arguing that a multistakeholder process is important for this case, and I don't actually see much in the way of argument about why int is a super special case.  Some particular responses below.

> The reason .INT is anomalous is that its original delegation was 
>completely outside of the ICANN process, or any established process.

Since that's also sort of true of COM, NET, and UK (to pick three obvious ones), I think the premise is either in pretty serious trouble, or else you're making an argument that at least a large number of important TLDs fall into this category.  Are you sure you want to make that argument? 

At the same time, I said "sort of true" because it's simply false that the original delegation was outside any established process.  It fell inside the IANA processes at the time it was created.  We know that because it's written down.  The IANA had an enormous amount of leeway at the time INT was created, but in any case the TLD is documented in the appropriate policy documentation from that period (this is why I got so exercised about that text about 1591 not being a policy document).  In fact, the bigger problem is UK, which is _not_ documented in 1591 and is an exception to the policy in that document (and the earlier RFC 920).  

> No one has provided a credible argument as to why the root zone 
>administrator should be running a TLD

This places the burden of proof on the wrong party.  If you think there is a restriction here that ought to be in place, it's necessary to argue for it (more on that below).

Moreover, I think you are ignoring an important argument that has been made and, as near as I can see, hasn't been refuted or even tackled:
this is how the situation is now, it has been working (to the extent that INT is useful to anyone) for some time, and the issue has been punted to the GAC, which will presumably in good time come up with something to do about this "international organization" special domain.  Given that, leaving things this way until after the transition (and saying that's what's going to happen) seems entirely reasonable.  It's also achievable immediately, which is another good reason to prefer such an approach over others.  We have _far_ too many loose ends not to tie this one off as quickly as possible.

> and there have been many unrefuted arguments as to why it should not 
> be

The only actual argument I've seen (i.e. a thing with premises, as opposed to strong assertions that something would be right) relies on the premise that ICANN's bylaws restrict this behaviour, and as more than one person has pointed out that isn't exactly true.  INT does not fall afoul of the bylaws because of the ways in which it is unusual.

It's not an argument to assert something.  That's how I describe the bulk of the claims I've seen about why ICANN shouldn't run INT (at least through the transition).

> 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.

If I understand you correctly, I could restate that as, "Getting INT out of IANA as an extension of the transition process has nothing to do with IANA as such.  It is administrative cleanup work."  If that is a fair restatement, then I'd like to suggest that admisitrative cleanup work can wait until after the transition, because we have too little time and too much to do to clean up every untidy administrative corner.  Indeed, this sounds like another case of people using the transition as an opportunity for axe-grinding.  I think we should discourage that.  

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship