<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
I think this is a reasonable approach. alwasy a good idea to ask
the stakeholders.<br>
<br>
I also think it is about time this issue rose to the top.<br>
<br>
I volunteer to be on an Int DT, even if all we can produce at the
moment is a process by, which we can arrive at the recommendation.<br>
<br>
One of my questions is why this couldn't become a GNSO issue. As the
GNSO starts to have a much wider set of registry types perhaps this
is just one piece of the puzzle. Or perhaps the international
organization aspects of .int registrants makes them a better fit for
the ccNSO. Especially if we adopt a model with structural
separation between the policy functions and the operational
functions, the solution might be as 'simple' as finding the right
home for the registry. The again, we might find that we also need
to find a specific steward for the registry itself, as was done with
.org.<br>
<br>
I have no idea how the registrants of .int would feel about any of
these and thus I go back to Bill's approach, let's come up with some
questions to ask the registrants of .int.<br>
<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27-Feb-15 03:33, manning bill wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:72B0D35F-76F1-4516-B1E6-4E8C0ADDC7C1@isi.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">One might actually ask the parties registered under .INT as to what they would like to see. I’m sure they a) are fully invested in the outcome, and
b) might actually have opinions that matter. I can not see why the IETF or the RIRs should have a say in the matter.
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 26February2015Thursday, at 11:20, Robert Guerra <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rguerra@privaterra.org"><rguerra@privaterra.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Eduardo,
In regards to .INT, might I suggest the question get asked to the other communities - Numbers (RIR's) & Protocols (IETF). They might have identified the issue as well and may have possible way forward.
regards
Robert
--
Robert Guerra
Phone: +1 416-893-0377
Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rguerra@privaterra.org">rguerra@privaterra.org</a>
PGP Keys : <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://keybase.io/rguerra">https://keybase.io/rguerra</a>
On 26 Feb 2015, at 14:07, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Can ISOC manage it?
-ed
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ocl@gih.com"><ocl@gih.com></a>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello all,
actually the Management of .INT is a high stakes political game.
The ITU has affirmed for many years that they wish to be managing .INT
Two references:
- Response from the ITU on Response to Request for Comments on the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions; National
Telecommunications and Informat
ion Administration, Docket No. 110207099–1099–01, RIN 0660–XA23;
published in the Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February
25, 2011, page 10569
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/ITU_E910_IANA%20NOI%20response_30-03-2011_final.pdf">http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/ITU_E910_IANA%20NOI%20response_30-03-2011_final.pdf</a>
- ITU Recommendation E.910
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.910-200512-I">http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.910-200512-I</a>
Given this political hot potato, would it be wise for ICANN to simply
divest itself of it within 2 years or should it hold on to it?
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 26/02/2015 16:29, Milton L Mueller wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi, Andrew
Fiona Alexander of NTIA has made a frequent point of telling us that
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">.int is currently in the IANA contract (C.2.9.4) and a complete proposal
will have to decide what to do with it.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I personally believe that ICANN and/or IANA should get rid of this
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">function. It's not central to their missions and I'd like to maintain a
clean line between the root zone registry and TLD registry operators.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
By the same token I think the stakes are pretty low on this one and if
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">we just said "it stays with ICANN" most planets would remain in their
orbits.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
A better middle ground might be to specify, as part of the transition,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">that ICANN will come up with a plan to divest itself of it within 2 years.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship">mailto:cwg-stewardship</a>-
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bounces@icann.org">bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:30 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">liaison
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">from the Board to CWG)
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We can discuss the conditions around ICANNs administration of .int
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">today,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">but responding to your comment : "I don't believe ICANN/IANA is in any
competition with anyone to operate the int registry, because the USG
specifies the operator and, as far as I know, hasn't put the operation
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">out to
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">bid"
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- I think it is expected from the community, at least from the GAC
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">side,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">that the CWG discuss and have thoughts on what we see as the best
solution for the .int post transition - that is when US GOV no longer
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">have
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">the possibility to specify/change through a bid.
I am prepared to believe that lots of people think the specification of
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">the
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">operator of int is covered in this transition, but I don't actually see
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">that in
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">any of the materials. The current NTIA-ICANN agreement is for the
_operation_ of the int zone, but not for the _policy_ of it. That
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">seems to me
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">to be different from the root zone, where the policies governing the
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">root
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">zone (all the co-ordination and so on) are also vested in ICANN's
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">policy side.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
In other words, ICANN is performing the technical functions for int,
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">but not
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">the registry operator function broadly construed. This is rather like
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">(for
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">example) org: PIR is the registry operator, and it contracts to Afilias
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">to
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">perform the technical functions. PIR could pull that technical
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">operations
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">contract and give it to someone else.
Contrast this with (say) info, where ICANN has delegated operation of
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">that
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">namespace (including policy) to Afilias.
I am entirely prepared to be wrong about this (I'm often wrong), but if
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I am
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">then I'd like a pointer to the text that shows it.
I am not, please note, suggesting that int isn't a problem. I'm just
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">noting
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">that it might be a problem that we don't have to solve in order to
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">undertake
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">the transition. Any burden we can shed at this late date is an
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">advantage to
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">us, I suggest.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>