[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

['Andrew Sullivan']

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 03:22:50PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> 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. 

Your argument didn't include the premise "and is run by IANA".  The
only actually active premise in the argument reduces to, "A
multistakeholder process for redelegation of a TLD is required if and
only if that TLD is operated by IANA."  Right?  Does this apply to
domains other than TLDs?  

> 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). 
> 

It seems to me that those who revivified the entire INT topic are the
ones who got to work on piling up the soil.  Some of us thought
this topic was closed.

> 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). 
> 

I think these arguments have in fact been addressed, but I'll try
again.  On the "clear division" issue, IANA is already doing more than
one thing.  This is the operation of a registry, and it's exactly the
same sort of operation of a registry as another registry they operate
(the one for the root zone, as opposed to the INT zone).  There is not
an "established principle" of the sort you refer to there; there are
only the ICANN bylaws, and it is not obvious that there is any current
problem because it is not clear that INT falls into the same category
as other TLDs and therefore that ICANN is regulating it at all.
Finally, there is no obvious sense in which there is any current
policy-making to do, and therefore I reject the last premise.
 
> 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:
> 

I couldn't tell that you were agreeing to that.  But anyway,

> > 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. 
> 

Like others, I think the word "immediately" is unnecessary and raises
a complication (because the "relevant stakeholders" class is,
apparently, an area of some disagreement, and if it turns out to be
something that itself needs to be hammered out using ICANN processes
it might take some time).  Moreover, I am opposed to the claim that it
is anomalous for IANA to be doing this, because (1) they run another
names registry and (2) they've been running this one for some time.
There's no anomaly at all.  Apart from that, I have no real issue with
that text (and I think you'll find in the archives from February a
suggestion from me that this sort of approach be used).

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com