Andrew is perfectly correct and so, in a way, are you, Nigel. I would agree that it is not *normally* for ICANN to run a TLD, but .int is an unusual TLD.

I think that the current contract includes .int as one of the IANA functions. In preparing the CWG proposal we agreed that any change (or hiving off of .int) needed to follow due process and any action to change this should be decided post transition. Few saw it as a priority and most recognised that there was little agreement for dealing with this as part of the transition.

I would note that .int is seen by many as a highly political registry: making a decision will not be easy.

And I don't see your poacher-gamekeeper argument. Given ICANN has been managing the domain against a policy defined elsewhere (an RFC) for many years, are there examples of their management of the TLD that have affected their decisions on other of the IANA functions or vice-versa?

Martin Boyle

Sent from my iPhone

nominet.uk DD: +44 (0)1865 332251

Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, OX4 4DQ, United Kingdom

On 14 Sep 2016, at 16:13, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:

I couldn't disagree more.

In its role as IANA it should be not be both poacher and gamekeeper.

Yet in its role as IANA *AND* the regsitry operator of .INT that is what it does.

It needs to divest itself of running a registry.

On 14/09/16 14:50, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:14:40PM +0100, Nigel Roberts wrote:

And ICANN should not run a registry either. (It does.)

Actually, in its job as IANA, ICANN's whole job is to run registries.

Of course, that's supposed to go to PTI once this is over, but it's

not true that today ICANN "should not" run a registry.

A

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community