[CWG-Stewardship] FW: Fate of .int
grace.abuhamad at icann.org
Fri Jun 5 12:30:41 UTC 2015
Forwarding on behalf of Richard Hill
On 6/5/15, 7:43 AM, "Richard Hill" <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>PLEASE FORWARD TO CWG-Stewardship
>I see that the matter of .int continues to be discussed on this list. I
>refer to Milton's message at:
>As Milton correctly points out, .int is not used by governments, it is
>by intergovernmental organizations. And the representatives in GAC are
>typically not the people who represent governments in, say, ILO or WHO.
>As I've pointed out before on this list, there was a formal process to
>consult the interested parties, intergovernmental organizations, and the
>result was the unanimous approval of Recommendation ITU-T E.910.
>I don't see any reason to posit that the requirements and desires of
>intergovernmental organizations have changed since the approval of E.910,
>I don't understand why implementation, to the extent practicable, of E.910
>should not be made part of the transition.
>To be clear: I am formally asking this group to include in its transition
>proposal the requirement that E.910 be implemented to the extent
>as part of the transition.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the CWG-Stewardship