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

[manning bill]

RFC 1591 described the environment and conditions surrounding the root zone at the time.  It was intended to 
be a snapshot, an image in time, of how things were.  A description of how it was structured and what rules were
in place does not make it a policy document, it was/is a narrative of the times.

I am dubious about your recommendation to lump .INT in with other TLDs that are clearly bound by a single 
sovereign policy.  The .INT space was and now is again based on the core premise of  membership being a treaty organization
(there remain some legacy entries when the rules were different for .INT).

It is a subtle difference, but worth considering.   The .INT space does not fall cleanly or neatly into RFC 1591 dispute
resolution nor is there an entity which _could_ enter into a contract with ICANN.   It really is a different animal.

/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102

On 19March2015Thursday, at 4:51, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship