[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Though we did use a very complicated process to redelegate .org way back
when.
So there is precedence for developing an intentional method of making
such a decision.

I agree that it is not obvious why this decision belongs to the GAC and
not to a CWG
Though of course GAC advice would be useful as ever.

avri

On 27-May-15 10:23, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> I`m a bit surprised about theassumption 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.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com