[CWG-Stewardship] Follow up on II.A (was Re: For your review - version 2.2.1 of the draft transition plan)

[Andrew Sullivan]

Dear colleagues,

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:16:34AM +0000, Marika Konings wrote:
> Please find attached version 2.2.1 of the draft transition plan. This version includes the following minor revisions:
> 
>   *   Edits to address the points raised by Andrew

Thanks for this.

I still wonder about the discussion of RFC 1591.  The text still says,
"This document was not meant to be a policy document …," yet in the
paragraph immediately before that it says, "It is a short document
intended to outline how the domain name system was structured at that
time and what rules were in place to decide on its expansion."  In
other words, it's a document that outlines the policies then governing
the root zone.  I'm not sure how else one might describe it, but maybe
"policy" is being used here in a way I don't understand.

In the paragraph about FOIWG Recommendations, it says "in light of the
Internet today".  That strikes me as potentially too great a scope.
I'd suggest, "in light of the move of the IANA function to ICANN."  I
_think_ that is the whole of the scope of the FOIWG Recommendations.

Later on the same page, about policy disputes, we have, "Currently
RFC1591 only applies to ccTLDs, .GOV, and .MIL and most of these do
not have any contracts which specify a dispute resolution mechanism
with ICANN."  It seems to me that RFC 1591 applies to INT as well,
though perhaps the dispute resolution mechanism doesn't.  I can't tell
from the context whether this sentence is intended to say, "Currently,
the dispute resolution mechanisms in RFC 1591 …."  Perhaps just adding
INT to the list would help.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com