[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

[Martin Boyle]

That sounds like policy on the fly, Chuck, and there is my aversion again.  Sorry, but I'm having problems here!  Very crudely, why is it ok for Verisign to run .com and the RZM, but not icann to run for a little longer .int until after we've sorted IANA stewardship?

And, by the way, I don't have any axe to grind other than we have coherent policy thinking.

Martin

Sent from my iPhone

> On 27 May 2015, at 16:48, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
> 
> But it is a new requirement that would be implemented after transition.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 11:35 AM
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain
> 
>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:26:24AM -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>> and i agree it can wait as long as long as the various bylaws are 
>> clear about neither ICANN nor IANA running a TLD regsitry.
> 
> This is a new requirement you're introducing, though, right?  For that's not what thy bylaws say now.
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship