[CWG-Stewardship] FW: Fate of .int
avri at acm.org
Fri Jun 5 13:42:56 UTC 2015
It seems to me that this could be one of the considerations of the post
transition consideration on the long term future .int. The intersts of
the .int registrants another, as well as whatever may come out of the
GAC considerations. I think it is is enough to indicate there will full
consideration of all issues, we do not need to enumerate the origin of
the various opinions we may or may not get.
On 05-Jun-15 08:30, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
> 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.
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
More information about the CWG-Stewardship