[CWG-Stewardship] on int (was Re: ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG))
Lindeberg, Elise
elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no
Mon Mar 2 12:32:00 UTC 2015
Thanks Greg - That a good analysis of the situation.
All - I see that some in this group things that just bringing up the .int is like setting a fire to the place, but I think I agree with those who say that this might not be the most complicated issue we have to deal with in the CWG, and as underlined by many others - it’s on the “must do” list set out by the USG.
It could be limited to some of the elements that is already mentioned by several in the CWG
1. describing/documenting the status quo around the operations of the .int, - the fact that IANA is now the registry operator and the challenges that this might have on the oversight and any policy changes, if any at all, in the future, - when USG withdraw
2. A recommendation to ICANN to come up with a plan to divest - possibly to point to other registry that could take over
3. Point at/describe where and how policy changes can happen, if at all, in the future
Elise
Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] På vegne av Greg Shatan
Sendt: 27. februar 2015 02:43
Til: Andrew Sullivan
Kopi: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] on int (was Re: ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG))
I'm completely in favor of eliminating issues from our list. However, our list is not the only one that matters. In the end, it's the NTIA's list that matters, I'm not sure how to resolve points where our issues differ, but I'm fairly confident that the NTIA is not going to take something off of their list simply because we took it off of ours.
On this point in particular, I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that IANA is responsible for the technical operations only.and that all the policy formation is reserved to the USG,based on your reading of C.2.9.4.
I don't see anything in C.2.9.4 that reserves policy to the USG. It does say that IANA shall operate the INT TLD "within the current registration policies for the TLD".-- but it doesn't say where those policies are set. It certainly doesn't reserve to itself the right to change those policies. In any event, when the IANA Functions Contract goes away, so does C.2.9.4, and any USG limitation on .INT policies goes away with it. This would be a
The IANA website does deal with .INT policy in a section called ".INT Policy and Procedures." http://www.iana.org/domains/int/policy This in turn cites to RFC 1591, which merely states that "[T]his domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases." I don't see any indication here, either, that the USG sets policy on .INT
SAC 067 is consistent with this, and states the following:
6.1.1 US Government Involvement in .INT TLD Management The NTIA has no role in the day-to-day operation of the .INT domain. As .INT management is considered to be an IANA Function, questions relating to the U.S. government involvement in setting management policy—e.g., criteria for obtaining a .INT domain—remain open.
Based on the foregoing, it seems to me that when the IANA Functions Contract goes away, .INT is IANA's to do with what they will, subject only to the parameters of RFC 1591. If we are okay with that, fine. If we think it should be constrained as it was under the IANA Function Contract, that's fine too. But, I don't think we can merely eliminate the issue from the list.
Greg
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Replying to several messages at once to reduce list traffic.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:29:21PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Hi, Andrew
> Fiona Alexander of NTIA has made a frequent point of telling us that .int is currently in the IANA contract (C.2.9.4) and a complete proposal will have to decide what to do with it.
>
As I was arguing upthread, it _is_ in the contract, but in a strictly
limited way: the technical operations only. That's what's in C.2.9.4.
In that section, all the policy formation is reserved to the USG:
The Contractor shall operate the INT TLD within the current
registration policies for the TLD. Upon designation of a successor
registry by the Government, if any, the Contractor shall cooperate
with NTIA to facilitate the smooth transition of operation of the
INT TLD. Such cooperation shall, at a minimum, include timely
transfer to the successor registry of the then-current top-level
domain registration data. The Contractor shall also implement
modifications in performance of the IANA functions as needed upon
mutual agreement of the parties.
It seems to me that this WG therefore can nicely side-step this issue
by noting that IANA is currently the technical operator but not the
policy authority. So as part of the transition, we can state that the
pre-existing rules remain in effect (no policy changes, and if the USG
designates a new registry then ICANN will cheerfully help). Moreover,
if NTIA believes that the policy authority is also part of this
transfer, then ICANN will follow the same policy while consulting with
existing int registrants to ask them for a new policy authority. No
alterations in int registration policy will be undertaken without the
(what? Rough consensus? Majority preference? I don't care) of all
int registrants.
That dodges the problem of getting a complete solution to all the
policy issues for int while respecting the NTIA statements and
direction. Moreover, it kicks this problem down the road a bit and
thereby allows us not to have to hammer out all the details right now.
It is consistent with what everyone wants -- ongoing security and
stability -- while yet leaving NTIA an option as to which way we are
to understand the existing agreement. Moreover, it's consistent with
the multistakeholder approach, and we can even enumerate all the
existing affected stakeholders since the zone is so small. (Even if
we extended the affected class to all the potential registrants, the
list is still entirely manageable in size. So there is one
potentially fraught question, and that is whether to use the bigger or
smaller class here.)
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 06:27:51PM +0100, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> actually the Management of .INT is a high stakes political game.
>
> The ITU has affirmed for many years that they wish to be managing .INT
I suggest that the above approach neatly avoids us having to debate
whether management of int can pass to ITU without violating any of the
NTIA's directives on this issue. If the ITU can convince all the
relevant stakeholders (however defined -- see above), then they can
run it. If not, then not. And maybe they don't want it any more.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:11:43PM +0100, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
> Strickling has repeatedly said that some solution should be presented
> for the .INT situation. What the exact problem needs to be solved is,
> I don't know but I suspect it has to do with the fact that IANA is now
> the registry and the underlining policy doesn't has a real home nor
> versight.
I agree, and I'm suggesting that the ambiguity is something we should
take advantage of in order to reduce the "must do" items before the
transition.
Please note that I'm not suggesting this isn't important or something
that ought to be left forever or anything like that. I'm just saying
that, given all the things that we have to achieve in roughly four
months, we had better figure out how to eliminate issues from our list
whenever it is practical and safe to do so. This is, I submit, such a
case; so let's take advantage of that.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab
Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet
666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621
Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
gsshatan at lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150302/02ed5021/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list