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

[manning bill]

and yet, as you called out earlier, RFC 1591 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.”

so it DOES say,  “this is how things were”. And its an outline.  It is not prescriptive going forward.

Agree that when DT-H is formed, these topics will have a venue.  Perhaps we can chat @ DFW, if you 
will be there.


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

On 19March2015Thursday, at 5:34, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> Hi Bill,
> 
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 05:10:52AM -0700, manning bill wrote:
> 
>> 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 leery of attributing intention to authors who are not around to
> ask (and even if they are around to ask, memory is a tricky thing).
> What we have is a document, and it describes a set of rules about how
> a thing operates.  I think that's a policy document.  If it's not,
> what else would you call it?  "Narrative of the times," doesn't seem
> to me to be true: it isn't structured as a narrative, and the
> Introduction doesn't say, "This is what things are like right now,"
> but rather, "Here's the structure and administrative rules."
> 
>> 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.
> 
> That's why I was asking what the scope of that sentence is.  As
> written now, it's clearly false.  If the scope is to say that the
> dispute resolution mechanism doesn't apply to INT, that's ok with me,
> but I wonder how one would found such a claim.  I guess this is a job
> that'll have to be taken up by the relevant DT.
> 
> 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