[CWG-Stewardship] CWG response on .ARPA (Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG)

[Seun Ojedeji]

For the record, I am not confused, don't know of others. You may want to
read through the thread before concluding as such. Especially read my
response to Greg where I actually referred to CSC/IFRT recommendations as a
result of their performance review.

Your response would most likely be rhetoric as well considering that you
seem to be implying that IETF no longer carry out performance review of
their IANA related function. On that same note you may also fault the CRISP
opinion on how their second level domains in .ARPA. should be handled.

Anyway this does not affect me and its just some inconsistency/ambiguity in
the CWG response[1] that I thought I should flag especially based on recent
CRISP response to ICG.

You are ICG member, all the best in putting things together.

Regards
1. You may want to look at the CWG response to the question below:
Scope
13) The .ARPA domain is used for special purposes. Please could you clarify
whether or not the .ARPA domain will be included in the CSC and IFR
processes.

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.



Is there any reason to believe, even in a wild scenario, that the CSC or an
IFR has the remit, authority or jurisdiction to remove (or even recommend
the removal) of a TLD (.ARPA or otherwise) from the root?



I assume that Greg at least understands the proposal well enough to pose
this as a rhetorical question.

But in case anyone else is confused, the answer is short and simple: No.

The existence of a TLD  in the root is a policy decision my within the
ICANN or iETF processes, CSC and IFR review only the performance of the
IANA in implementing those decisions.



Dr. Milton L. Mueller

Professor, School of Public Policy

Georgia Institute of Technology
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151008/856bfbda/attachment.html>