[CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff

[Christopher Wilkinson]

Nigel: If and when this question comes onto the table, I would expect it to be scrutinised for several months by the GAC, among other interested parties.

Personally, I would see no likelihood  of .INT being 'opened up'. 

Regards

Christopher

On 16 Sep 2016, at 10:48, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:

> For the second time in a week or so, I will say
> 
> "I couldn't disagree more".
> 
> The argument that just because something bad hasn't happened yet because of a defect is fallacious.
> 
> Donald Trump hasn't started any wars yet, so he'd make a better President, right?
> 
> The .INT is issue is important, though the registry itself is entirely unimportant (it was created simply to enable the .NATO TLD to be removed from the root).
> 
> There's actually no reason .INT couldn't be opened up, in the same way that .NET was.
> 
> But the whole point is modern standards of accountability, particularly as set out in 2000 in the ECHR case of McGonnell versus the United Kingdom.  (The rule of 'apparent bias').
> 
> Or do either of you think that case was wrongly decided?
> 
> On 16/09/16 07:27, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
>> Agree with Martin.
>> 
>> CW
>> 
>> 
>> On 14 Sep 2016, at 23:48, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk
>> <mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Andrew is perfectly correct and so, in a way, are you, Nigel.  I would
>>> agree that it is not *normally* for ICANN to run a TLD, but .int is an
>>> unusual TLD.
>>> 
>>> I think that the current contract includes .int as one of the IANA
>>> functions.  In preparing the CWG proposal we agreed that any change
>>> (or hiving off of .int) needed to follow due process and any action to
>>> change this should be decided post transition.  Few saw it as a
>>> priority and most recognised that there was little agreement for
>>> dealing with this as part of the transition.
>>> 
>>> I would note that .int is seen by many as a highly political registry:
>>> making a decision will not be easy.
>>> 
>>> And I don't see your poacher-gamekeeper argument.  Given ICANN has
>>> been managing the domain against a policy defined elsewhere (an RFC)
>>> for many years, are there examples of their management of the TLD that
>>> have affected their decisions on other of the IANA functions or
>>> vice-versa?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Martin Boyle
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> *nominet.uk* <http://nominet.uk/>**DD: +44 (0)1865 332251
>>> <tel:+44%20%280%291865%20332251>
>>> Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, OX4 4DQ, United Kingdom
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 14 Sep 2016, at 16:13, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net
>>> <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I couldn't disagree more.
>>>> 
>>>> In its role as IANA it should be not be both poacher and gamekeeper.
>>>> 
>>>> Yet in its role as IANA *AND* the regsitry operator of .INT that is
>>>> what it does.
>>>> 
>>>> It needs to divest itself of running a registry.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 14/09/16 14:50, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:14:40PM +0100, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>>>>>> And ICANN should not run a registry either. (It does.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Actually, in its job as IANA, ICANN's whole job is to run registries.
>>>>> Of course, that's supposed to go to PTI once this is over, but it's
>>>>> not true that today ICANN "should not" run a registry.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A
>>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>