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

[Martin Boyle]

If I remember correctly, RFC1591 specifies the rights to registration for .int.  So opening up would depend on a policy process?  As the policy "authority " is RFC1591 I guess the process would not be in ICANN?


Martin Boyle
Senior Policy Advisor

Sent from my iPhone

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D0FCF7.DEE0F1F0]

nominet.uk<http://nominet.uk/>    DD: +44 (0)1865 332251<tel:+44%20(0)1865%20332251>
Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, OX4 4DQ, United Kingdom


On 16 Sep 2016, at 10:27, Christopher Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:

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<mailto: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>
<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>* <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>
<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>
<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>
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160916/81d28dfd/attachment-0001.html>