<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I am quite troubled by one question here, and beyond its application to the .INT question:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">"For so specialised a TLD, is this really something for wide community decision - stakeholders who are not stakeholders (or interested parties) in this decision?"</span><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">The idea that stakeholders must be "stakeholders (or interested parties" in a particular decision in order to participate in a process really stands the multistakeholder model on its head. If we exclude certain sectors of stakeholders from a process, it really cannot be called multistakeholder any longer (and as Avri pointed out on a recent call, even an imbalanced multistakeholder group deviates from the multistakeholder model and may not be truly multistakeholder).</font></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">I think we need to proceed with extreme caution whenever there is a suggestion that certain stakeholder groups do not hold a sufficient "stake" or are not competent or qualified to participate in a particular issue or process or group. By definition, the multistakeholder model involves stakeholders coming from diverse backgrounds, skillsets and concerns. This cannot be denied without compromising the legitimacy of a "multistakeholder" process or group.</font></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">The idea that being an "interested party" should be a qualification for participating in a decision causes even greater concern. If anything, this could be deemed a disqualification, since a party with an interest in the outcome will tend to seek an outcome beneficial to that interest, not the community's interest or the public interest. For a variety of reasons, we do not operate that way -- being an interested party does not qualify one from participating in a multistakeholder process relating to that interest. This makes it even more important that a truly inclusive multistakeholder group be assembled to consider and resolve issues regardless of whose ox is being gored, to balance the self-interest of the interested parties and to assure the integrity of the process.</font></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Greg</font></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Martin Boyle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk" target="_blank">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I'm ok with a post-transition process. I'm less ok with us plucking processes out of the air...<br>
<br>
We need to think about who asks what of whom. And once we have the input, we also need to think about who makes the decision. But is that a general discussion or just for the GAC to devise and report back on its decision? And reporting back could be based on when they agree to a collective decision - I'm not ok with telling the GAC that it needs to do something by a particular date and in a particular manner.<br>
<br>
Asking registrants about what will essentially be a redelegation process is not really an existing criterion for a gTLD, is it? (It could be an interesting way of doing it, but I'm not sure that it is without its problems.) And will the registrant necessarily be the person authorised to give a view in the organisation?<br>
<br>
For so specialised a TLD, is this really something for wide community decision - stakeholders who are not stakeholders (or interested parties) in this decision?<br>
<br>
Finally, have we agreed that the IANA functions operator should not be running a TLD registry? If so, I must have missed that discussion/decision. Bearing in mind that they have been providing the role for a number of years, this seems to me to be a decision that should be clearly justified.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Martin<br>
</font></span><span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
<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-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller<br>
Sent: 21 May 2015 16:32<br>
To: <a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>; <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain<br>
<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">I endorsed the idea, too.<br>
<br>
As best I can tell, the issue has been more or less swept under the rug by the statement "leave it to the GAC."<br>
I have no objection in principle to affording GAC a major role in developing a recommendation for .INT, but I think the CWG as a whole should not be just "leaving it" to them; we have the responsibility to develop some guidelines as to how they should deal with it - e.g., do they actually ask the registrants what they want? Do we instruct them that IANA FO should not be running a TLD registry? Do they develop a recommendation and bring it back to the CWG? On what timetable?<br>
<br>
--MM<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
><br>
> I remember this and remember endorsing the idea at the time. There<br>
> might have been others who also endorsed the idea at that time.<br>
><br>
> I do not see how we can avoid doing this.<br>
><br>
> Perhaps doing this can be something that comes post transition if it<br>
> can be guaranteed in some way. but I believe we really need to take it into account.<br>
> We can establish a process by which ti would be done immediately<br>
> following transition, including the consultation with the registrants,<br>
> the creation of a proposal, a community review and a decision.<br>
><br>
> We have been reminded several times in several ways by NTIA that we<br>
> could not just not deal with the .int issue.<br>
><br>
> avri<br>
><br>
> On 21-May-15 07:20, manning wrote:<br>
> > it did indeed come up on the list at least i know i brought it up.<br>
> > discussion<br>
> never happened in the DT, a summary judgement was issued and adopted.<br>
> ><br>
> > the proposal was/is to ASK those entities in the .INT space what<br>
> > they<br>
> would like, going forward. Would this group be hostile to such an effort?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > manning<br>
> > <a href="mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com">bmanning@karoshi.com</a><br>
> > PO Box 12317<br>
> > Marina del Rey, CA 90295<br>
> > <a href="tel:310.322.8102" value="+13103228102">310.322.8102</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On 15May2015Friday, at 1:36, Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> >> Speaking of .INT, I am very surprised that there has been no<br>
> >> discussion of<br>
> IANA divesting .INT and putting it in someone else's hands. While this<br>
> is not a particularly urgent issue for the transition, it seems<br>
> obvious to me that IANA, as the root zone file administrator, should<br>
> not be in the business of running a TLD registry for international intergovernmental organizations.<br>
> Why has this issue not surfaced?<br>
> >><br>
> >> --MM<br>
> >><br>
> >> From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
> >> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Gomes,<br>
> >> Chuck<br>
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 4:09 PM<br>
> >> To: Greg Shatan<br>
> >> Cc: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a> IANA<br>
> >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items<br>
> >> considered by CSC Design Team<br>
> >><br>
> >> You are correct Greg. Donna set me straight. It would help if I<br>
> >> read all of<br>
> the DT-C notes.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Chuck<br>
> >><br>
> >> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>]<br>
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:53 PM<br>
> >> To: Gomes, Chuck<br>
> >> Cc: CW Lists; Donna Austin; <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a> IANA<br>
> >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items<br>
> >> considered by CSC Design Team<br>
> >><br>
> >> Chuck,<br>
> >><br>
> >> I'm not too sure about that. The punch list, asks the question<br>
> "Composition: who will select the TLD representative that is not a<br>
> ccTLD or gTLD registry?" so it seems to refer to a single<br>
> representative, and one that is not a ccTLD or gTLD (regardless of<br>
> membership in any ICANN structure). The punch list further refers to<br>
> Annex G, page 59. Page 59 has the following list of proposed Registry members of the CSC:<br>
> >><br>
> >> * 2 x gTLD registry operators<br>
> >> * 2 x ccTLD registry operators<br>
> >> * 1 additional TLD representative not considered a ccTLD or gTLD<br>
> registry operator such as the IAB for .ARPA could also be included in<br>
> the minimum requirements but is not mandatory<br>
> >><br>
> >> Based on these data points, it appears that DT C is discussing the<br>
> >> third bullet point, which gives .ARPA as an example. (The third<br>
> >> bulletpoint also notes this "seat" is not "mandatory.") Therefore,<br>
> >> it does look like the reference is to that very limited universe<br>
> >> cited by Christopher Wilkinson: .ARPA (IANA/IAB), .INT (IANA), .MIL<br>
> >> (US Dept of Defense), .EDU (US Dept of Commerce/Dept of<br>
> >> Education/Educause), .GOV (US General Services Admin). (There are<br>
> >> other "sTLDs" but these now seem to be considered gTLDs for all<br>
> >> intents and purposes, such as .mobi, .travel, .xxx, etc.)<br>
> >><br>
> >> I don't see the harm in having a seat for these 5 (really 4, since<br>
> >> as Martin<br>
> notes, it would be odd to have the .INT operator (IANA) in the CSC)<br>
> registries, since as Martin also notes, they do not otherwise have a<br>
> direct voice or a natural channel through the GNSO or ccNSO.<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> Greg<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Gomes, Chuck<br>
> <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> >> Christopher,<br>
> >><br>
> >> I am not on DT-C so I cannot speak for them, but my understanding<br>
> >> is<br>
> that they were talking about TLD registries that are not members of<br>
> the ccNSO or RySG. Regardless, I think you raise an important issue<br>
> that should be considered.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Chuck<br>
> >><br>
> >> From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
> >> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of CW Lists<br>
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:50 PM<br>
> >> To: Donna Austin; <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a> IANA<br>
> >> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered<br>
> >> by CSC Design Team<br>
> >><br>
> >> Dear Donna, Dear Friends and Colleagues:<br>
> >><br>
> >> With reference to the DT-C notes on the 'Punch List', attached, for<br>
> >> which I<br>
> thank you, allow me a short comment on Point 11: CSC Composition.<br>
> >><br>
> >> The concept of a TLD that is not a ccTLD or a gTLD is rather<br>
> >> obscure. Many<br>
> would consider that there are none such. However, internal evidence<br>
> suggests that CWG considers that there are some.<br>
> >><br>
> >> In which case, to the best of my knowledge, the only candidates are<br>
> >> .int, .gov, .edu and .mil. or .arpa, thus the DT-C comments under<br>
> >> point 11,<br>
> would appear to be a rather odd circumlocution, if the intention is to<br>
> ensure that the USG-based TLDs, or the ICANN-based TLDs, would somehow<br>
> have an 'extra' seat on the CSC.<br>
> >><br>
> >> I drew this question to your attention in my mail, below, of 26<br>
> >> February,<br>
> but did not receive a reply.<br>
> >> Having reviewed in some detail the most recent version of the CWG<br>
> >> transition proposal, I still find no reference to the above TLDs<br>
> >> (with the exception of .int)<br>
> >><br>
> >> Indeed, if it is the CWG position that these TLDs should be somehow<br>
> 'grandfathered' outside the IANA transition, then may I suggest that<br>
> it behoves someone - not excluding NTIA - to say so clearly, now.<br>
> >> Otherwise there will be a lingering misunderstanding that would sit<br>
> uncomfortably with the underlying proposition that the IANA transition<br>
> is to the global multistakeholder Internet community.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Regards<br>
> >><br>
> >> CW<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> Begin forwarded message:<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> From: CW Lists <<a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>><br>
> >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Proposal Version 2.0<br>
> >> Date: 26 Feb 2015 13:50:44 GMT+01:00<br>
> >> To: Lise Fuhr <<a href="mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk">lise.fuhr@difo.dk</a>>, Jonathan Robinson<br>
> >> <<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>><br>
> >> Cc: "<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a> Stewardship"<br>
> >> <<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
> >><br>
> >> Jonathan, Lise:<br>
> >><br>
> >> Thankyou for another draft magnum opus. As you say there are<br>
> >> several<br>
> aspects to be completed in greater detail.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Meanwhile, may I point out that under:<br>
> >> I. The Community's Use of the IANA<br>
> >><br>
> >> - and indeed in the whole document, there is no reference to the TLDs:<br>
> .gov, .mil, .edu and .arpa.<br>
> >> These are not gTLDs, as the reference to .int confirms. For the<br>
> >> sake of<br>
> completeness, it would not be appropriate to ignore them.<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>