<div dir="ltr">Can ISOC manage it?<div><br></div><div>-ed</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" target="_blank">ocl@gih.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello all,<br>
<br>
actually the Management of .INT is a high stakes political game.<br>
<br>
The ITU has affirmed for many years that they wish to be managing .INT<br>
<br>
Two references:<br>
<br>
- Response from the ITU on Response to Request for Comments on the<br>
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions; National<br>
Telecommunications and Informat<br>
ion Administration, Docket No. 110207099–1099–01, RIN 0660–XA23;<br>
published in the Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February<br>
25, 2011, page 10569<br>
<a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/ITU_E910_IANA%20NOI%20response_30-03-2011_final.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/ITU_E910_IANA%20NOI%20response_30-03-2011_final.pdf</a><br>
<br>
- ITU Recommendation E.910<br>
<a href="http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.910-200512-I" target="_blank">http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.910-200512-I</a><br>
<br>
Given this political hot potato, would it be wise for ICANN to simply<br>
divest itself of it within 2 years or should it hold on to it?<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 26/02/2015 16:29, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
> Hi, Andrew<br>
> Fiona Alexander of NTIA has made a frequent point of telling us that .int is currently in the IANA contract (C.2.9.4) and a complete proposal will have to decide what to do with it.<br>
><br>
> I personally believe that ICANN and/or IANA should get rid of this 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.<br>
><br>
> By the same token I think the stakes are pretty low on this one and if we just said "it stays with ICANN" most planets would remain in their orbits.<br>
><br>
> A better middle ground might be to specify, as part of the transition, that ICANN will come up with a plan to divest itself of it within 2 years.<br>
><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-">cwg-stewardship-</a><br>
>> <a href="mailto:bounces@icann.org">bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan<br>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:30 AM<br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison<br>
>> from the Board to CWG)<br>
>><br>
>> Hi,<br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:<br>
>>> We can discuss the conditions around ICANNs administration of .int today,<br>
>> but responding to your comment : "I don't believe ICANN/IANA is in any<br>
>> competition with anyone to operate the int registry, because the USG<br>
>> specifies the operator and, as far as I know, hasn't put the operation out to<br>
>> bid"<br>
>>> - I think it is expected from the community, at least from the GAC side,<br>
>> that the CWG discuss and have thoughts on what we see as the best<br>
>> solution for the .int post transition - that is when US GOV no longer have<br>
>> the possibility to specify/change through a bid.<br>
>> I am prepared to believe that lots of people think the specification of the<br>
>> operator of int is covered in this transition, but I don't actually see that in<br>
>> any of the materials. The current NTIA-ICANN agreement is for the<br>
>> _operation_ of the int zone, but not for the _policy_ of it. That seems to me<br>
>> to be different from the root zone, where the policies governing the root<br>
>> zone (all the co-ordination and so on) are also vested in ICANN's policy side.<br>
>><br>
>> In other words, ICANN is performing the technical functions for int, but not<br>
>> the registry operator function broadly construed. This is rather like (for<br>
>> example) org: PIR is the registry operator, and it contracts to Afilias to<br>
>> perform the technical functions. PIR could pull that technical operations<br>
>> contract and give it to someone else.<br>
>> Contrast this with (say) info, where ICANN has delegated operation of that<br>
>> namespace (including policy) to Afilias.<br>
>><br>
>> I am entirely prepared to be wrong about this (I'm often wrong), but if I am<br>
>> then I'd like a pointer to the text that shows it.<br>
>><br>
>> I am not, please note, suggesting that int isn't a problem. I'm just noting<br>
>> that it might be a problem that we don't have to solve in order to undertake<br>
>> the transition. Any burden we can shed at this late date is an advantage to<br>
>> us, I suggest.<br>
>><br>
>> Best regards,<br>
>><br>
>> A<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Andrew Sullivan<br>
>> <a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><b><font face="verdana, sans-serif">NOTICE:</font></b> <span>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.</span></div>
</div>