[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 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?

Andrew, please. Are any of these TLDs run by IANA? If they were, I would definitely be making that argument. 
They are not so they are irrelevant to this discussion. 

Let's try to stay focused. Though some people seem determined to make mountains out of these molehills the differences we are talking about are quite small. (see below). 

> 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).

That argument has been made. Clear division of responsibility, focused mission for IANA, avoidance of the (admittedly minor) exception to the established principle that ICANN should not be running entities that are in the same business it is regulating, separation of policy and implementation (running a TLD makes IANA a policy maker). 

Burden of proof has shifted. Now, your argument as to why not suffers from one glaring error. You say:

> 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.

You are overlooking the simple fact that we are ALL agreeing to leave the actual redelegation to after the transition. Here is the proposed wording:

> Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review 
> from relevant stakeholders immediately after the implementation of the 
> IANA stewardship transition

With the addition of some recognition that it is anomalous for IANA to be doing this. 

That is all we are debating here. Most of that language came from Elise. The only contested aspect of it, as far as I can determine, is whether we like the word "immediately" and whether we should leave it entirely to "GAC discretion." I contest your statement that "the decision has been punted to the GAC." 

Can we stay focused on that?