Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
From https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions Answering some of your questions on the stewardship transition By delivering the IANA stewardship transition proposal<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-ntia-transmissions-2016-06-13-en> to the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in March, the global Internet community executed the largest multistakeholder process<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-accountability-participation-stat...> ever undertaken in Internet governance. The transition proposal achieved the broad support thousands of Internet stakeholders by reinforcing the current multistakeholder system and making ICANN more accountable to Internet users around the world. The proposal also garnered support from global representatives of industry, the technical community, civil society groups, academics, governments and end users. The timely completion of the transition will help preserve the continued openness of the Internet by entrusting its oversight with those who have made the greatest investments in its extraordinary success so far – the volunteer-based multistakeholder community. Still, some questions remain about the nature of the IANA functions, ICANN, and the likely impacts of the transition and we wanted to answer them for you in one place. 1. Does the transition threaten Internet freedom? No. The United States Government's contract with ICANN does not give the U.S. any power to regulate or protect speech on the Internet. The IANA functions are technical – not content – based. The freedom of any person to express his or herself on the globally interoperable Internet is in fact enhanced by the transition moving forward. ICANN is not, has not been, and by its Bylaws cannot become, a place for regulation of content. Ensuring that the Internet remains open, interoperable and stable in the long-term helps protect Internet freedom. Some believe that extending the contract may actually lead to the loss of Internet freedom because it could fuel efforts to move Internet governance decisions to the United Nations (U.N.). Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and retired Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright stated<http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/06/keep-internet-free-and-open-ica...> that, "rejecting or even delaying the transition would be a gift to those governments threatened by a free and open Internet." 2. Will countries be able to censor speech on the Internet after the transition? No more so than they can today. Right now, there is nothing about ICANN or its contract with the U.S. Government that prevents a country from censoring or blocking content within its own borders. ICANN is a technical organization and does not have the remit or ability to regulate content on the Internet. That is true under the current contract with the U.S. Government and will remain true without the contract with the U.S. Government. The transition will not empower or prohibit sovereign states from censoring speech. Many leading civil society and advocacy groups<https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2016/05/CSstatementonIANAtransi...> [PDF, 106 KB] actually argue that the transition will enhance free speech on the Internet. Human Rights Watch, Access Now, Article19, Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge, support the transition because "executing upon the IANA transition is the best way to ensure the continued functionality of the global internet and to protect the free flow of information so essential to human rights protection." 3. Will ICANN be more susceptible to capture by a single entity after the transition? No. ICANN's multistakeholder model is designed to ensure that no single entity, whether country, business or interest group, can capture ICANN or exclude other parties from decision-making processes. Features of this model include open processes where anyone can participate, decisions made by consensus, established appeals mechanisms, and transparent and public meetings. These elements are all reinforced in the community transition proposal<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-ntia-transmissions-2016-06-13-en> and have been building blocks for the free and open Internet we see today. NTIA, along with other U.S. Government agencies and a panel of corporate governance experts, conducted a thorough review of the transition proposal<https://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/2016/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-as...>. NTIA confirmed that the proposal mitigated the risk of a government or third-party capture of ICANN after the transition. Columbia University's John Coffee also concluded that<http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202762978409/Adventures-in-Corporate-Go...>, "ICANN has been given so many checks and balances that it is difficult to imagine a hostile takeover," after the transition. 4. Will ICANN seek oversight by the U.N. to maintain its antitrust exemption after the transition? No. ICANN is not, and never has been exempted from antitrust laws. ICANN has not been granted an antitrust exemption through any of its contracts with NTIA or the U.S. Department of Commerce. No court ruling in favor of ICANN has ever cited an antitrust exemption to support its ruling. This past July, NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling addressed the concerns<https://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2016/remarks-assistant-secretary-st...> about the possible antitrust liability of a post-transition ICANN and reaffirmed that "ICANN always has and will continue to be subject to antitrust laws." After the transition, ICANN will have no mandate, need or reason to seek to be overseen by another governmental or inter-governmental group for protection. NTIA also would not allow the transition to occur if ICANN were to replace the role of the U.S. Government with another government or inter-governmental organization. 5. Will governments have more control over the Internet after the transition? No. The transition proposal does not increase the role of governments over the Internet or ICANN as an organization. The multistakeholder model appropriately limits the influence of governments and intergovernmental organizations to an advisory role in policy development. More than 160 governments actively participate as a single committee and must come to a consensus before policy advice can be issued. After the transition, there will be times where the ICANN Board must give special consideration to the public policy advice of governments. However, this will only happen when there is no objection from any government in the committee – which includes the United States. This is a stricter requirement than is currently in place for government advice. In a March testimony before Congress<http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20160317/104682/HHRG-114-IF16-Wstate-...> [PDF, 103 KB], Intel Corporation stated that the transition proposal "strikes the right balance of including governments in a true multistakeholder community, while not giving them increased influence over ICANN's decisions," after the transition. 6. Does delaying the transition by one or two years have any negative consequences? Yes, any delay of the transition could have significant global consequences. The Internet is a voluntary, trust-based system. A delay would introduce uncertainty, for businesses and other stakeholders, which could have long-term business, social, cultural, political and economic impacts. This past March, U.S. Ambassador David Gross testified<http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=418B1D81-1F0B-4E...> that, "the clearest impact [of a delay] is on the broader, global community. It will signal that the U.S. has changed its position and no longer believes in a private-sector led internet and that governments will play a primary role in making the final decision. Russia, China, and others will welcome such a decision." In addition, the Centre for International Governance Innovation added<https://www.ourinternet.org/press/statement-by-gcig-regarding-iana-transitio...> to this sentiment by expressing that "[A delay will] increase distrust, and will likely encourage some governments to pursue their own national or even regional Internets." 7. Will ICANN relocate its headquarters outside of the United States after the transition? No. ICANN will not relocate its corporate headquarters location after the transition. The transition proposal clearly states<https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-transition-proposal-final.pd...> [PDF, 2.32 MB] that "the legal jurisdiction in which ICANN resides is to remain unchanged." California law is the basis for the new mechanisms created to empower the ICANN community and hold ICANN the organization, Board and community, accountable. In addition, ICANN's Articles of Incorporation are filed under California law, and its Bylaws state that ICANN's headquarters are in California. 8. Is it illegal to allow the transition to move forward without congressional approval because it is a transfer of U.S. property? No. ICANN is not aware of any U.S. Government property that would be transferred as a result of the transition. In a letter to Chairman Grassley and Chairman Goodlatte<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/20160810_-_ntia_response_to_...> [PDF, 1.25 MB] last month, NTIA stated that the Department of Commerce Office of General Counsel conducted a legal review of this issue and advised NTIA that transition would not result in the transfer of U.S. Government property, and that, in the view of the Department, the authoritative root zone file is not U.S. Government property. 9. Will Verisign have the ability to raise prices of.com domain names on 1 October 2016 as a result of the transition? No. The cost of .com domains is capped at $7.85 until 30 November 2018. The current pricing of the .com registry is defined by two separate contracts (1) the .com Registry Agreement between Verisign and ICANN; and (2) the Cooperative Agreement between Verisign and the Department of Commerce. After 2018, Verisign and NTIA will have to negotiate to change the terms for the Cooperative Agreement or agree to end the Cooperative Agreement before discussing new pricing of the .com domain with ICANN. In letters<https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/2016-8-31_doj_response_to_c...> [PDF, 851 KB] to Chairman Cruz, Chairman Lee, and Chairman Duffy last week, the Assistant Attorney General stated that, consistent with past practices, it is expected that NTIA will seek the advice of the U.S. Department of Justice on any competition issues implicated by the extension of these two contracts. 10. Do the recent independent review process (IRP) decisions regarding applications for new generic top level domains prove that ICANN is not sufficiently transparent or accountable enough for the transition? No. An IRP is an accountability mechanism used to review and resolve a concern raised by the community over a policy decision made by ICANN. Any result from an IRP, whether positive or negative, demonstrates that the system of checks and balances built into the ICANN multistakeholder model works. The IRP has been enhanced to strengthen ICANN's commitment to employ open, transparent, bottom-up, multistakeholder processes after the transition. 11. Does ICANN have an operational relationship with the Chinese government? No. ICANN does not have any operational relationship with the Chinese Government. ICANN's engagement center in China is one of seven around the world. The presence of an ICANN engagement center or operational hub within a country does not imply any level of support for the nation's government or its policies.
Bruce, This is the formal evidence and logic based ICANN's contribution to clarity here. That helps but the risk is that the IANA Transition will become a political football in the final days of the U.S. election. At that point evidence and logic will hold little sway against media "sound bites" that may well be completely false. The hope is that the parties to the election have bigger issues to deal with. If this becomes an issue there will be nothing ICANN can do in the immediate time frame, but there would be important lessons for ICANN to learn with regard to an ongoing strategy of global internet governance education. Actually, going forward ICANN, working with its stakeholders, should address this challenge even if the issue does not become media sound bites in the next couple of weeks. Accountability, like open data, should include knowledge translation to inform and educate all. [/Sorry, as an academic I succumbed to a Saturday lecture here, but I do know what it means to talk over people's heads, we (and ICANN) do it all the time, with poor results //:-(/ ] Sam L. On 9/9/2016 11:43 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
From
https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions
Answering some of your questions on the stewardship transition
By delivering the IANA stewardship transition proposal <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-ntia-transmissions-2016-06-13-en> to the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in March, the global Internet community executed the largest multistakeholder process <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-accountability-participation-stat...> ever undertaken in Internet governance.
The transition proposal achieved the broad support thousands of Internet stakeholders by reinforcing the current multistakeholder system and making ICANN more accountable to Internet users around the world. The proposal also garnered support from global representatives of industry, the technical community, civil society groups, academics, governments and end users.
The timely completion of the transition will help preserve the continued openness of the Internet by entrusting its oversight with those who have made the greatest investments in its extraordinary success so far – the volunteer-based multistakeholder community.
Still, some questions remain about the nature of the IANA functions, ICANN, and the likely impacts of the transition and we wanted to answer them for you in one place.
1.Does the transition threaten Internet freedom?
No. The United States Government's contract with ICANN does not give the U.S. any power to regulate or protect speech on the Internet. The IANA functions are technical – not content – based. The freedom of any person to express his or herself on the globally interoperable Internet is in fact enhanced by the transition moving forward. ICANN is not, has not been, and by its Bylaws cannot become, a place for regulation of content.
Ensuring that the Internet remains open, interoperable and stable in the long-term helps protect Internet freedom. Some believe that extending the contract may actually lead to the loss of Internet freedom because it could fuel efforts to move Internet governance decisions to the United Nations (U.N.). Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and retired Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright stated <http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/06/keep-internet-free-and-open-ica...> that, "rejecting or even delaying the transition would be a gift to those governments threatened by a free and open Internet."
2.Will countries be able to censor speech on the Internet after the transition?
No more so than they can today. Right now, there is nothing about ICANN or its contract with the U.S. Government that prevents a country from censoring or blocking content within its own borders. ICANN is a technical organization and does not have the remit or ability to regulate content on the Internet. That is true under the current contract with the U.S. Government and will remain true without the contract with the U.S. Government. The transition will not empower or prohibit sovereign states from censoring speech.
Many leading civil society and advocacy groups <https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2016/05/CSstatementonIANAtransi...> [PDF, 106 KB] actually argue that the transition will enhance free speech on the Internet. Human Rights Watch, Access Now, Article19, Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge, support the transition because "executing upon the IANA transition is the best way to ensure the continued functionality of the global internet and to protect the free flow of information so essential to human rights protection."
3.Will ICANN be more susceptible to capture by a single entity after the transition?
No. ICANN's multistakeholder model is designed to ensure that no single entity, whether country, business or interest group, can capture ICANN or exclude other parties from decision-making processes. Features of this model include open processes where anyone can participate, decisions made by consensus, established appeals mechanisms, and transparent and public meetings. These elements are all reinforced in the community transition proposal <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-ntia-transmissions-2016-06-13-en> and have been building blocks for the free and open Internet we see today.
NTIA, along with other U.S. Government agencies and a panel of corporate governance experts, conducted a thorough review of the transition proposal <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/2016/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-as...>. NTIA confirmed that the proposal mitigated the risk of a government or third-party capture of ICANN after the transition. Columbia University's John Coffee also concluded that <http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202762978409/Adventures-in-Corporate-Go...>, "ICANN has been given so many checks and balances that it is difficult to imagine a hostile takeover," after the transition.
4.Will ICANN seek oversight by the U.N. to maintain its antitrust exemption after the transition?
No. ICANN is not, and never has been exempted from antitrust laws. ICANN has not been granted an antitrust exemption through any of its contracts with NTIA or the U.S. Department of Commerce. No court ruling in favor of ICANN has ever cited an antitrust exemption to support its ruling. This past July, NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling addressed the concerns <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2016/remarks-assistant-secretary-st...> about the possible antitrust liability of a post-transition ICANN and reaffirmed that "ICANN always has and will continue to be subject to antitrust laws."
After the transition, ICANN will have no mandate, need or reason to seek to be overseen by another governmental or inter-governmental group for protection. NTIA also would not allow the transition to occur if ICANN were to replace the role of the U.S. Government with another government or inter-governmental organization.
5.Will governments have more control over the Internet after the transition?
No. The transition proposal does not increase the role of governments over the Internet or ICANN as an organization. The multistakeholder model appropriately limits the influence of governments and intergovernmental organizations to an advisory role in policy development. More than 160 governments actively participate as a single committee and must come to a consensus before policy advice can be issued.
After the transition, there will be times where the ICANN Board must give special consideration to the public policy advice of governments. However, this will only happen when there is no objection from any government in the committee – which includes the United States. This is a stricter requirement than is currently in place for government advice.
In a March testimony before Congress <http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20160317/104682/HHRG-114-IF16-Wstate-...> [PDF, 103 KB], Intel Corporation stated that the transition proposal "strikes the right balance of including governments in a true multistakeholder community, while not giving them increased influence over ICANN's decisions," after the transition.
6.Does delaying the transition by one or two years have any negative consequences?
Yes, any delay of the transition could have significant global consequences. The Internet is a voluntary, trust-based system. A delay would introduce uncertainty, for businesses and other stakeholders, which could have long-term business, social, cultural, political and economic impacts.
This past March, U.S. Ambassador David Gross testified <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=418B1D81-1F0B-4E...> that, "the clearest impact [of a delay] is on the broader, global community. It will signal that the U.S. has changed its position and no longer believes in a private-sector led internet and that governments will play a primary role in making the final decision. Russia, China, and others will welcome such a decision." In addition, the Centre for International Governance Innovation added <https://www.ourinternet.org/press/statement-by-gcig-regarding-iana-transitio...> to this sentiment by expressing that "[A delay will] increase distrust, and will likely encourage some governments to pursue their own national or even regional Internets."
7.Will ICANN relocate its headquarters outside of the United States after the transition?
No. ICANN will not relocate its corporate headquarters location after the transition. The transition proposal clearly states <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-transition-proposal-final.pd...> [PDF, 2.32 MB] that "the legal jurisdiction in which ICANN resides is to remain unchanged." California law is the basis for the new mechanisms created to empower the ICANN community and hold ICANN the organization, Board and community, accountable. In addition, ICANN's Articles of Incorporation are filed under California law, and its Bylaws state that ICANN's headquarters are in California.
8.Is it illegal to allow the transition to move forward without congressional approval because it is a transfer of U.S. property?
No. ICANN is not aware of any U.S. Government property that would be transferred as a result of the transition. In a letter to Chairman Grassley and Chairman Goodlatte <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/20160810_-_ntia_response_to_...> [PDF, 1.25 MB] last month, NTIA stated that the Department of Commerce Office of General Counsel conducted a legal review of this issue and advised NTIA that transition would not result in the transfer of U.S. Government property, and that, in the view of the Department, the authoritative root zone file is not U.S. Government property.
9.Will Verisign have the ability to raise prices of.com domain names on 1 October 2016 as a result of the transition?
No. The cost of .com domains is capped at $7.85 until 30 November 2018. The current pricing of the .com registry is defined by two separate contracts (1) the .com Registry Agreement between Verisign and ICANN; and (2) the Cooperative Agreement between Verisign and the Department of Commerce. After 2018, Verisign and NTIA will have to negotiate to change the terms for the Cooperative Agreement or agree to end the Cooperative Agreement before discussing new pricing of the .com domain with ICANN.
In letters <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/2016-8-31_doj_response_to_c...> [PDF, 851 KB] to Chairman Cruz, Chairman Lee, and Chairman Duffy last week, the Assistant Attorney General stated that, consistent with past practices, it is expected that NTIA will seek the advice of the U.S. Department of Justice on any competition issues implicated by the extension of these two contracts.
10.Do the recent independent review process (IRP) decisions regarding applications for new generic top level domains prove that ICANN is not sufficiently transparent or accountable enough for the transition?
No. An IRP is an accountability mechanism used to review and resolve a concern raised by the community over a policy decision made by ICANN. Any result from an IRP, whether positive or negative, demonstrates that the system of checks and balances built into the ICANN multistakeholder model works. The IRP has been enhanced to strengthen ICANN's commitment to employ open, transparent, bottom-up, multistakeholder processes after the transition.
11.Does ICANN have an operational relationship with the Chinese government?
No. ICANN does not have any operational relationship with the Chinese Government. ICANN's engagement center in China is one of seven around the world. The presence of an ICANN engagement center or operational hub within a country does not imply any level of support for the nation's government or its policies.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
Hello Sam,
there would be important lessons for ICANN to learn with regard to an ongoing strategy of global internet governance education.
Agreed. There has been a tendency at times to over simplify with the result that ICANN’s role appears far broader than it actually is. The work the CCWG did on more clearly defining ICANN’s narrow mission helps – but it does need to be translated into simple messages going forward. There is still a perception that control of ICANN equals control of the Internet. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
+1 ... and, unfortunately, we send these not very helpful messages as well ... On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Sam,
there would be important lessons for ICANN to learn with regard to an ongoing strategy of global internet governance education.
Agreed. There has been a tendency at times to over simplify with the result that ICANN’s role appears far broader than it actually is. The work the CCWG did on more clearly defining ICANN’s narrow mission helps – but it does need to be translated into simple messages going forward. There is still a perception that control of ICANN equals control of the Internet.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
:-)I'd like to offer a perhaps "different" idea for how to approach this topic. The CCWG-IG is a parallel WG at ICANN and we are engaged in trying to provide input to Senior staff/Board and community on the larger Internet Governance eco system. Yes, it is possible that some of the engagements that ICANN undertook over the past few years may have led to misunderstandings. However, much good was done on actually explaining what ICANN does and must do. Let me offer all of us the following four Cs, to consider: Co-exist with others who are engaged in IG and who may have even greater roles depending the issues. Collaborate both on IG and on awareness about ICANN's purpose and contributions to IG... - when it is appropriate, and that includes with IGF and the national and regional Initiatives of the IGF; with ISOC, with IEEE, with W3C, and with the UN relevant agencies - ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, CSTD, UNCTAD, ... and at the regional level and with various professional groups both from business and civil society.... Complement - figure out when it is important to support another entity that has a leadership role in a particular area. This for instance might be the importance of support to the UN Trust Fund which supports the IGF Secretariat and through relevant organizations, provide funding for the National and Regional IGF activities and growth and enhancement. Compete -- when other entities seek to assume the coordinating role of ICANN in the unique identifiers, whether well meaning or not, make it clear that ICANN has a unique role and purpose and is the critical entity in fulfilling its core mission. From: erika@erikamann.com Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 08:33:25 +0200 To: Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au CC: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff +1 ... and, unfortunately, we send these not very helpful messages as well ... On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote: Hello Sam,
there would be important lessons for ICANN to learn with regard to an ongoing strategy of global internet governance education.
Agreed. There has been a tendency at times to over simplify with the result that ICANN’s role appears far broader than it actually is. The work the CCWG did on more clearly defining ICANN’s narrow mission helps – but it does need to be translated into simple messages going forward. There is still a perception that control of ICANN equals control of the Internet. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Marilyn, Your contribution is not so much a "different" idea for how to approach this topic but a more a strategy for action. The main driver behind your four Cs is an understanding that ICANN is but another stakeholder in broader Internet Governance. It has its own remit to steward responsibly. It has its own stakeholder interests to monitor and protect. But it also has its stakeholder obligation to promote good policies in the broader IG arena, and do so without being seen simply as a self-interested lobbyist./Also, your four Cs apply equally to within ICANN where these tasks have to be carried out in collaboration with all, and not just by staff or the board./ Sam L. On 9/11/2016 10:59 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote:
:-) I'd like to offer a perhaps "different" idea for how to approach this topic.
The CCWG-IG is a parallel WG at ICANN and we are engaged in trying to provide input to Senior staff/Board and community on the larger Internet Governance eco system.
Yes, it is possible that some of the engagements that ICANN undertook over the past few years may have led to misunderstandings.
However, much good was done on actually explaining what ICANN does and must do.
Let me offer all of us the following four Cs, to consider:
Co-exist with others who are engaged in IG and who may have even greater roles depending the issues.
Collaborate both on IG and on awareness about ICANN's purpose and contributions to IG... - when it is appropriate, and that includes with IGF and the national and regional Initiatives of the IGF; with ISOC, with IEEE, with W3C, and with the UN relevant agencies - ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, CSTD, UNCTAD, ... and at the regional level and with various professional groups both from business and civil society....
Complement - figure out when it is important to support another entity that has a leadership role in a particular area. This for instance might be the importance of support to the UN Trust Fund which supports the IGF Secretariat and through relevant organizations, provide funding for the National and Regional IGF activities and growth and enhancement.
Compete -- when other entities seek to assume the coordinating role of ICANN in the unique identifiers, whether well meaning or not, make it clear that ICANN has a unique role and purpose and is the critical entity in fulfilling its core mission.
On Sep 10, 2016, at 8:28 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
... Agreed. There has been a tendency at times to over simplify with the result that ICANN’s role appears far broader than it actually is. The work the CCWG did on more clearly defining ICANN’s narrow mission helps – but it does need to be translated into simple messages going forward. There is still a perception that control of ICANN equals control of the Internet.
A consistent strategy of communicating exactly what ICANN is (and is not) would help avoid misunderstandings to the contrary. This may also require that the various roles that ICANN serves within its overall mission be more clearly broken out, since the present amalgamation of roles (ICANN-as-the- IANA-operator, ICANN-as-the-organizer-of-the-names-community, ICANN-as- the-secretary-of-the-empowered-immunity, etc.) does not lend itself to easy explanation to those not already immersed in the stew... /John p.s. my views alone - please feel free to discard, use, or reuse as desired.
On Sep 11, 2016, at 8:50 AM, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> wrote:
.. (ICANN-as-the-IANA-operator, ICANN-as-the-organizer-of-the-names-community, ICANN-as-the-secretary-of-the-empowered-immunity, etc.)
Obviously, I meant: "ICANN-as-the-secretary-of-the-empowered-community" (but it made for an amusing autocorrection nonetheless…. <chuckle>) :-) /John p.s. my views alone.
On Sep 10, 2016, at 8:28 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
... Agreed. There has been a tendency at times to over simplify with the result that ICANN’s role appears far broader than it actually is. The work the CCWG did on more clearly defining ICANN’s narrow mission helps – but it does need to be translated into simple messages going forward. There is still a perception that control of ICANN equals control of the Internet.
A consistent strategy of communicating exactly what ICANN is (and is not) would help avoid misunderstandings to the contrary. This may also require that the various roles that ICANN serves within its overall mission be more clearly broken out, since the present amalgamation of roles (ICANN-as-the- IANA-operator, ICANN-as-the-organizer-of-the-names-community, ICANN-as- the-secretary-of-the-empowered-community etc.) does not lend itself to easy explanation to those not already immersed in the stew... /John p.s. my views alone - please feel free to discard, use, or reuse as desired.
And ICANN should not run a registry either. (It does.) On 14/09/16 12:29, John Curran wrote:
On Sep 10, 2016, at 8:28 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
... Agreed. There has been a tendency at times to over simplify with the result that ICANN’s role appears far broader than it actually is. The work the CCWG did on more clearly defining ICANN’s narrow mission helps – but it does need to be translated into simple messages going forward. There is still a perception that control of ICANN equals control of the Internet.
A consistent strategy of communicating exactly what ICANN is (and is not) would help avoid misunderstandings to the contrary. This may also require that the various roles that ICANN serves within its overall mission be more clearly broken out, since the present amalgamation of roles (ICANN-as-the- IANA-operator, ICANN-as-the-organizer-of-the-names-community, ICANN-as- the-secretary-of-the-empowered-community etc.) does not lend itself to easy explanation to those not already immersed in the stew...
/John
p.s. my views alone - please feel free to discard, use, or reuse as desired.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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 -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
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
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 [cid:image001.jpg@01D0FCF7.DEE0F1F0] nominet.uk<http://nominet.uk/> DD: +44 (0)1865 332251<tel:+44%20(0)1865%20332251> Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, OX4 4DQ, United Kingdom On 14 Sep 2016, at 16:13, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Agree with Martin. CW On 14 Sep 2016, at 23:48, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> wrote:
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
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
For the second time in a week or so, I will say "I couldn't disagree more". The argument that just because something bad hasn't happened yet because of a defect is fallacious. Donald Trump hasn't started any wars yet, so he'd make a better President, right? The .INT is issue is important, though the registry itself is entirely unimportant (it was created simply to enable the .NATO TLD to be removed from the root). There's actually no reason .INT couldn't be opened up, in the same way that .NET was. But the whole point is modern standards of accountability, particularly as set out in 2000 in the ECHR case of McGonnell versus the United Kingdom. (The rule of 'apparent bias'). Or do either of you think that case was wrongly decided? On 16/09/16 07:27, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
Agree with Martin.
CW
On 14 Sep 2016, at 23:48, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> wrote:
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* <http://nominet.uk/>**DD: +44 (0)1865 332251 <tel:+44%20%280%291865%20332251> Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, OX4 4DQ, United Kingdom
On 14 Sep 2016, at 16:13, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto: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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Nigel: If and when this question comes onto the table, I would expect it to be scrutinised for several months by the GAC, among other interested parties. Personally, I would see no likelihood of .INT being 'opened up'. Regards Christopher On 16 Sep 2016, at 10:48, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
For the second time in a week or so, I will say
"I couldn't disagree more".
The argument that just because something bad hasn't happened yet because of a defect is fallacious.
Donald Trump hasn't started any wars yet, so he'd make a better President, right?
The .INT is issue is important, though the registry itself is entirely unimportant (it was created simply to enable the .NATO TLD to be removed from the root).
There's actually no reason .INT couldn't be opened up, in the same way that .NET was.
But the whole point is modern standards of accountability, particularly as set out in 2000 in the ECHR case of McGonnell versus the United Kingdom. (The rule of 'apparent bias').
Or do either of you think that case was wrongly decided?
On 16/09/16 07:27, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
Agree with Martin.
CW
On 14 Sep 2016, at 23:48, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> wrote:
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* <http://nominet.uk/>**DD: +44 (0)1865 332251 <tel:+44%20%280%291865%20332251> Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, OX4 4DQ, United Kingdom
On 14 Sep 2016, at 16:13, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto: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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
If I remember correctly, RFC1591 specifies the rights to registration for .int. So opening up would depend on a policy process? As the policy "authority " is RFC1591 I guess the process would not be in ICANN? Martin Boyle Senior Policy Advisor Sent from my iPhone [cid:image001.jpg@01D0FCF7.DEE0F1F0] nominet.uk<http://nominet.uk/> DD: +44 (0)1865 332251<tel:+44%20(0)1865%20332251> Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, OX4 4DQ, United Kingdom On 16 Sep 2016, at 10:27, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Nigel: If and when this question comes onto the table, I would expect it to be scrutinised for several months by the GAC, among other interested parties. Personally, I would see no likelihood of .INT being 'opened up'. Regards Christopher On 16 Sep 2016, at 10:48, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote: For the second time in a week or so, I will say "I couldn't disagree more". The argument that just because something bad hasn't happened yet because of a defect is fallacious. Donald Trump hasn't started any wars yet, so he'd make a better President, right? The .INT is issue is important, though the registry itself is entirely unimportant (it was created simply to enable the .NATO TLD to be removed from the root). There's actually no reason .INT couldn't be opened up, in the same way that .NET was. But the whole point is modern standards of accountability, particularly as set out in 2000 in the ECHR case of McGonnell versus the United Kingdom. (The rule of 'apparent bias'). Or do either of you think that case was wrongly decided? On 16/09/16 07:27, Christopher Wilkinson wrote: Agree with Martin. CW On 14 Sep 2016, at 23:48, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> wrote: 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<http://nominet.uk>* <http://nominet.uk/>**DD: +44 (0)1865 332251 <tel:+44%20%280%291865%20332251> Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, OX4 4DQ, United Kingdom On 14 Sep 2016, at 16:13, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> <mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
The only reference is descriptive rather than policy setting. .INT predates RFC1591. It says, simply "This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases". (The latter term is undefined, but includes telephony applications). You will find this text alongside all the other (at the time) existing generic domains as follows. Much of what is written below has been changed, and much of what has been changed was changed outside ICANN. I would be interested to know which policy decision classified some of the gTLDs in this list as "dehors ICANN", and which within. But as two of the gTLDs described in RFC 1591 are currently extremely sensitive (MIL and GOV),from what I heard in the Senate hearing, perhaps its best not to ask for an answer to this until after the end of the month??
World Wide Generic Domains:
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains.
EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below).1
NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD).
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here.
INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases.
United States Only Generic Domains:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country
Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994
domains (see US Domain, below).
MIL - This domain is used by the US military.
Sorry for the delay, Nigel. I agree with your conclusion. As you note, the .int TLD is quite well identified other than for the international databases: there is no ambiguity in scope for organizations established by international treaties. If I have understood correctly, international databases were transferred to be included under .arpa some long time ago. Either way, I see no reason why .int should be opened up beyond organizations established by international treaty at this stage and certainly not without a properly constituted policy development process (which would need to establish a process for appointing a new operator). None of this, of course, nullifies your conclusion! Martin -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: 16 September 2016 12:05 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> Cc: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff The only reference is descriptive rather than policy setting. .INT predates RFC1591. It says, simply "This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases". (The latter term is undefined, but includes telephony applications). You will find this text alongside all the other (at the time) existing generic domains as follows. Much of what is written below has been changed, and much of what has been changed was changed outside ICANN. I would be interested to know which policy decision classified some of the gTLDs in this list as "dehors ICANN", and which within. But as two of the gTLDs described in RFC 1591 are currently extremely sensitive (MIL and GOV),from what I heard in the Senate hearing, perhaps its best not to ask for an answer to this until after the end of the month??
World Wide Generic Domains:
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains.
EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below).1
NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD).
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here.
INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases.
United States Only Generic Domains:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country
Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994
domains (see US Domain, below).
MIL - This domain is used by the US military.
Milton, I'm glad to see there's now been lots of responses to Ted Cruz's spin and hopefully this debunking will hit Trump's peddling as well. They probably won't learn to stop peddling lies but at least they've underestimated some knowledgeable people within ICANN, who are able to describe the IANA transition in layman's terms. I learned a couple of things from that article, too.. =) -Raoul On 22 September 2016 at 18:37, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> wrote:
Sorry for the delay, Nigel.
I agree with your conclusion.
As you note, the .int TLD is quite well identified other than for the international databases: there is no ambiguity in scope for organizations established by international treaties.
If I have understood correctly, international databases were transferred to be included under .arpa some long time ago.
Either way, I see no reason why .int should be opened up beyond organizations established by international treaty at this stage and certainly not without a properly constituted policy development process (which would need to establish a process for appointing a new operator).
None of this, of course, nullifies your conclusion!
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: 16 September 2016 12:05 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> Cc: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
The only reference is descriptive rather than policy setting. .INT predates RFC1591.
It says, simply "This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases". (The latter term is undefined, but includes telephony applications).
You will find this text alongside all the other (at the time) existing generic domains as follows.
Much of what is written below has been changed, and much of what has been changed was changed outside ICANN.
I would be interested to know which policy decision classified some of the gTLDs in this list as "dehors ICANN", and which within.
But as two of the gTLDs described in RFC 1591 are currently extremely sensitive (MIL and GOV),from what I heard in the Senate hearing, perhaps its best not to ask for an answer to this until after the end of the month??
World Wide Generic Domains:
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains.
EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below).1
NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD).
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here.
INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases.
United States Only Generic Domains:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country
Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994
domains (see US Domain, below).
MIL - This domain is used by the US military.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I heard the Rider preventing the IANA transition is OUT of the current Continuing Resolution. Can Steve or Becky confirm? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D2157F.80474530] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Raoul Plommer Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:53 AM To: Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff Milton, I'm glad to see there's now been lots of responses to Ted Cruz's spin and hopefully this debunking will hit Trump's peddling as well. They probably won't learn to stop peddling lies but at least they've underestimated some knowledgeable people within ICANN, who are able to describe the IANA transition in layman's terms. I learned a couple of things from that article, too.. =) -Raoul On 22 September 2016 at 18:37, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> wrote: Sorry for the delay, Nigel. I agree with your conclusion. As you note, the .int TLD is quite well identified other than for the international databases: there is no ambiguity in scope for organizations established by international treaties. If I have understood correctly, international databases were transferred to be included under .arpa some long time ago. Either way, I see no reason why .int should be opened up beyond organizations established by international treaty at this stage and certainly not without a properly constituted policy development process (which would need to establish a process for appointing a new operator). None of this, of course, nullifies your conclusion! Martin -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>] Sent: 16 September 2016 12:05 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> Cc: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff The only reference is descriptive rather than policy setting. .INT predates RFC1591. It says, simply "This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases". (The latter term is undefined, but includes telephony applications). You will find this text alongside all the other (at the time) existing generic domains as follows. Much of what is written below has been changed, and much of what has been changed was changed outside ICANN. I would be interested to know which policy decision classified some of the gTLDs in this list as "dehors ICANN", and which within. But as two of the gTLDs described in RFC 1591 are currently extremely sensitive (MIL and GOV),from what I heard in the Senate hearing, perhaps its best not to ask for an answer to this until after the end of the month??
World Wide Generic Domains:
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains.
EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below).1
NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD).
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here.
INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases.
United States Only Generic Domains:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country
Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994
domains (see US Domain, below).
MIL - This domain is used by the US military.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This is indeed the present state of affairs. The continuing resolution has not been completed, though. We’ll have to see what happens when it’s all over. Steve
On Sep 23, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
I heard the Rider preventing the IANA transition is OUT of the current Continuing Resolution. Can Steve or Becky confirm? Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Raoul Plommer Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:53 AM To: Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
Milton, I'm glad to see there's now been lots of responses to Ted Cruz's spin and hopefully this debunking will hit Trump's peddling as well. They probably won't learn to stop peddling lies but at least they've underestimated some knowledgeable people within ICANN, who are able to describe the IANA transition in layman's terms.
I learned a couple of things from that article, too.. =)
-Raoul
On 22 September 2016 at 18:37, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> wrote: Sorry for the delay, Nigel.
I agree with your conclusion.
As you note, the .int TLD is quite well identified other than for the international databases: there is no ambiguity in scope for organizations established by international treaties.
If I have understood correctly, international databases were transferred to be included under .arpa some long time ago.
Either way, I see no reason why .int should be opened up beyond organizations established by international treaty at this stage and certainly not without a properly constituted policy development process (which would need to establish a process for appointing a new operator).
None of this, of course, nullifies your conclusion!
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>] Sent: 16 September 2016 12:05 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> Cc: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
The only reference is descriptive rather than policy setting. .INT predates RFC1591.
It says, simply "This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases". (The latter term is undefined, but includes telephony applications).
You will find this text alongside all the other (at the time) existing generic domains as follows.
Much of what is written below has been changed, and much of what has been changed was changed outside ICANN.
I would be interested to know which policy decision classified some of the gTLDs in this list as "dehors ICANN", and which within.
But as two of the gTLDs described in RFC 1591 are currently extremely sensitive (MIL and GOV),from what I heard in the Senate hearing, perhaps its best not to ask for an answer to this until after the end of the month??
World Wide Generic Domains:
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains.
EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below).1
NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD).
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here.
INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases.
United States Only Generic Domains:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country
Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994
domains (see US Domain, below).
MIL - This domain is used by the US military.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
The CR filed yesterday does not embody a compromise between the Senate majority and minority. It has quickly become clear that it cannot obtain the 60 votes required for getting to a vote on final passage, and is in fact designed to force Democrats back into negotiations prior to a procedural vote scheduled on the bill next Tuesday (the USG runs out of $ at midnight next Friday if a CR is not enacted by then). More horse-trading will occur in those negotiations and it is quite possible that the IANA transition delay will come back into play as a trade for an item wanted by the Democrats; press reports earlier this week indicated that a number of Senate Ds would accept a delay in exchange for gaining additional funding flexibility for the Export-Import Bank. Also significant is that, in addition to Donald Trump’s announcement on Wednesday that he favors a delay, both Republican members of the FCC also announced the same position this past week – and the Chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees just sent a letter to the Department of Justice asking multiple legal questions related to the transition, and requesting a response by next Tuesday (the same day as the initial Senate vote). So IANA remains in play and nothing is final until the same bill is passed by both the Senate and House and signed by the President. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:55 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff This is indeed the present state of affairs. The continuing resolution has not been completed, though. We’ll have to see what happens when it’s all over. Steve On Sep 23, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: I heard the Rider preventing the IANA transition is OUT of the current Continuing Resolution. Can Steve or Becky confirm? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Raoul Plommer Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:53 AM To: Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff Milton, I'm glad to see there's now been lots of responses to Ted Cruz's spin and hopefully this debunking will hit Trump's peddling as well. They probably won't learn to stop peddling lies but at least they've underestimated some knowledgeable people within ICANN, who are able to describe the IANA transition in layman's terms. I learned a couple of things from that article, too.. =) -Raoul On 22 September 2016 at 18:37, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> wrote: Sorry for the delay, Nigel. I agree with your conclusion. As you note, the .int TLD is quite well identified other than for the international databases: there is no ambiguity in scope for organizations established by international treaties. If I have understood correctly, international databases were transferred to be included under .arpa some long time ago. Either way, I see no reason why .int should be opened up beyond organizations established by international treaty at this stage and certainly not without a properly constituted policy development process (which would need to establish a process for appointing a new operator). None of this, of course, nullifies your conclusion! Martin -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>] Sent: 16 September 2016 12:05 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> Cc: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff The only reference is descriptive rather than policy setting. .INT predates RFC1591. It says, simply "This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases". (The latter term is undefined, but includes telephony applications). You will find this text alongside all the other (at the time) existing generic domains as follows. Much of what is written below has been changed, and much of what has been changed was changed outside ICANN. I would be interested to know which policy decision classified some of the gTLDs in this list as "dehors ICANN", and which within. But as two of the gTLDs described in RFC 1591 are currently extremely sensitive (MIL and GOV),from what I heard in the Senate hearing, perhaps its best not to ask for an answer to this until after the end of the month??
World Wide Generic Domains:
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains.
EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below).1
NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD).
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here.
INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases.
United States Only Generic Domains:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country
Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994
domains (see US Domain, below).
MIL - This domain is used by the US military.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16
I saw a tweet from ISOC to that effect but I don't have confirmation. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:48 PM To: 'Raoul Plommer' <plommer@gmail.com>; Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff I heard the Rider preventing the IANA transition is OUT of the current Continuing Resolution. Can Steve or Becky confirm? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2159A.91E979F0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Raoul Plommer Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:53 AM To: Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff Milton, I'm glad to see there's now been lots of responses to Ted Cruz's spin and hopefully this debunking will hit Trump's peddling as well. They probably won't learn to stop peddling lies but at least they've underestimated some knowledgeable people within ICANN, who are able to describe the IANA transition in layman's terms. I learned a couple of things from that article, too.. =) -Raoul On 22 September 2016 at 18:37, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> wrote: Sorry for the delay, Nigel. I agree with your conclusion. As you note, the .int TLD is quite well identified other than for the international databases: there is no ambiguity in scope for organizations established by international treaties. If I have understood correctly, international databases were transferred to be included under .arpa some long time ago. Either way, I see no reason why .int should be opened up beyond organizations established by international treaty at this stage and certainly not without a properly constituted policy development process (which would need to establish a process for appointing a new operator). None of this, of course, nullifies your conclusion! Martin -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>] Sent: 16 September 2016 12:05 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> Cc: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff The only reference is descriptive rather than policy setting. .INT predates RFC1591. It says, simply "This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases". (The latter term is undefined, but includes telephony applications). You will find this text alongside all the other (at the time) existing generic domains as follows. Much of what is written below has been changed, and much of what has been changed was changed outside ICANN. I would be interested to know which policy decision classified some of the gTLDs in this list as "dehors ICANN", and which within. But as two of the gTLDs described in RFC 1591 are currently extremely sensitive (MIL and GOV),from what I heard in the Senate hearing, perhaps its best not to ask for an answer to this until after the end of the month??
World Wide Generic Domains:
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains.
EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below).1
NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD).
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here.
INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases.
United States Only Generic Domains:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country
Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994
domains (see US Domain, below).
MIL - This domain is used by the US military.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________
Yes but things could still change. Jonathan Zuck President ACT|The App Association www.ACTonline.org<http://<br/>www.ACTonline.org> ________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:01:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Raoul Plommer'; Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff I saw a tweet from ISOC to that effect but I don’t have confirmation. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:48 PM To: 'Raoul Plommer' <plommer@gmail.com>; Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff I heard the Rider preventing the IANA transition is OUT of the current Continuing Resolution. Can Steve or Becky confirm? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2159A.91E979F0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Raoul Plommer Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:53 AM To: Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff Milton, I'm glad to see there's now been lots of responses to Ted Cruz's spin and hopefully this debunking will hit Trump's peddling as well. They probably won't learn to stop peddling lies but at least they've underestimated some knowledgeable people within ICANN, who are able to describe the IANA transition in layman's terms. I learned a couple of things from that article, too.. =) -Raoul On 22 September 2016 at 18:37, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> wrote: Sorry for the delay, Nigel. I agree with your conclusion. As you note, the .int TLD is quite well identified other than for the international databases: there is no ambiguity in scope for organizations established by international treaties. If I have understood correctly, international databases were transferred to be included under .arpa some long time ago. Either way, I see no reason why .int should be opened up beyond organizations established by international treaty at this stage and certainly not without a properly constituted policy development process (which would need to establish a process for appointing a new operator). None of this, of course, nullifies your conclusion! Martin -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>] Sent: 16 September 2016 12:05 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> Cc: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff The only reference is descriptive rather than policy setting. .INT predates RFC1591. It says, simply "This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases". (The latter term is undefined, but includes telephony applications). You will find this text alongside all the other (at the time) existing generic domains as follows. Much of what is written below has been changed, and much of what has been changed was changed outside ICANN. I would be interested to know which policy decision classified some of the gTLDs in this list as "dehors ICANN", and which within. But as two of the gTLDs described in RFC 1591 are currently extremely sensitive (MIL and GOV),from what I heard in the Senate hearing, perhaps its best not to ask for an answer to this until after the end of the month??
World Wide Generic Domains:
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains.
EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below).1
NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD).
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here.
INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases.
United States Only Generic Domains:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country
Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994
domains (see US Domain, below).
MIL - This domain is used by the US military.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Continuing Resolution passed. Lawsuit filed in Texas: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/Net_Complaint_-_FILED.pdf Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D21A41.7F3E9550] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jonathan Zuck [mailto:JZuck@actonline.org] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:24 PM To: Lori Schulman; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Raoul Plommer'; Martin Boyle Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff Yes but things could still change. Jonathan Zuck President ACT|The App Association www.ACTonline.org<http://%3cbr/%3ewww.ACTonline.org> ________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:01:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Raoul Plommer'; Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff I saw a tweet from ISOC to that effect but I don't have confirmation. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:48 PM To: 'Raoul Plommer' <plommer@gmail.com<mailto:plommer@gmail.com>>; Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff I heard the Rider preventing the IANA transition is OUT of the current Continuing Resolution. Can Steve or Becky confirm? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D21A41.7F19F650] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Raoul Plommer Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:53 AM To: Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff Milton, I'm glad to see there's now been lots of responses to Ted Cruz's spin and hopefully this debunking will hit Trump's peddling as well. They probably won't learn to stop peddling lies but at least they've underestimated some knowledgeable people within ICANN, who are able to describe the IANA transition in layman's terms. I learned a couple of things from that article, too.. =) -Raoul On 22 September 2016 at 18:37, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> wrote: Sorry for the delay, Nigel. I agree with your conclusion. As you note, the .int TLD is quite well identified other than for the international databases: there is no ambiguity in scope for organizations established by international treaties. If I have understood correctly, international databases were transferred to be included under .arpa some long time ago. Either way, I see no reason why .int should be opened up beyond organizations established by international treaty at this stage and certainly not without a properly constituted policy development process (which would need to establish a process for appointing a new operator). None of this, of course, nullifies your conclusion! Martin -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>] Sent: 16 September 2016 12:05 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>> Cc: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff The only reference is descriptive rather than policy setting. .INT predates RFC1591. It says, simply "This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases". (The latter term is undefined, but includes telephony applications). You will find this text alongside all the other (at the time) existing generic domains as follows. Much of what is written below has been changed, and much of what has been changed was changed outside ICANN. I would be interested to know which policy decision classified some of the gTLDs in this list as "dehors ICANN", and which within. But as two of the gTLDs described in RFC 1591 are currently extremely sensitive (MIL and GOV),from what I heard in the Senate hearing, perhaps its best not to ask for an answer to this until after the end of the month??
World Wide Generic Domains:
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains.
EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below).1
NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD).
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here.
INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases.
United States Only Generic Domains:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country
Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994
domains (see US Domain, below).
MIL - This domain is used by the US military.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hearing in the case is scheduled for 130 PM Central Time (I think that is GMT -5) today . Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/> http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 2:06 PM To: 'Jonathan Zuck' <JZuck@actonline.org>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; 'Raoul Plommer' <plommer@gmail.com>; Martin Boyle <martin.boyle@nominet.uk> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff Continuing Resolution passed. Lawsuit filed in Texas: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/Net_Complaint_-_FILED.pdf Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com From: Jonathan Zuck [mailto:JZuck@actonline.org] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:24 PM To: Lori Schulman; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Raoul Plommer'; Martin Boyle Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff Yes but things could still change. Jonathan Zuck President ACT|The App Association www.ACTonline.org <http://%3cbr/%3ewww.ACTonline.org> _____ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org <mailto:lschulman@inta.org> > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:01:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Raoul Plommer'; Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff I saw a tweet from ISOC to that effect but I dont have confirmation. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:48 PM To: 'Raoul Plommer' <plommer@gmail.com <mailto:plommer@gmail.com> >; Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> > Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff I heard the Rider preventing the IANA transition is OUT of the current Continuing Resolution. Can Steve or Becky confirm? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Raoul Plommer Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:53 AM To: Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff Milton, I'm glad to see there's now been lots of responses to Ted Cruz's spin and hopefully this debunking will hit Trump's peddling as well. They probably won't learn to stop peddling lies but at least they've underestimated some knowledgeable people within ICANN, who are able to describe the IANA transition in layman's terms. I learned a couple of things from that article, too.. =) -Raoul On 22 September 2016 at 18:37, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> > wrote: Sorry for the delay, Nigel. I agree with your conclusion. As you note, the .int TLD is quite well identified other than for the international databases: there is no ambiguity in scope for organizations established by international treaties. If I have understood correctly, international databases were transferred to be included under .arpa some long time ago. Either way, I see no reason why .int should be opened up beyond organizations established by international treaty at this stage and certainly not without a properly constituted policy development process (which would need to establish a process for appointing a new operator). None of this, of course, nullifies your conclusion! Martin -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> ] Sent: 16 September 2016 12:05 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> > Cc: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff The only reference is descriptive rather than policy setting. .INT predates RFC1591. It says, simply "This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases". (The latter term is undefined, but includes telephony applications). You will find this text alongside all the other (at the time) existing generic domains as follows. Much of what is written below has been changed, and much of what has been changed was changed outside ICANN. I would be interested to know which policy decision classified some of the gTLDs in this list as "dehors ICANN", and which within. But as two of the gTLDs described in RFC 1591 are currently extremely sensitive (MIL and GOV),from what I heard in the Senate hearing, perhaps its best not to ask for an answer to this until after the end of the month??
World Wide Generic Domains:
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains.
EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below).1
NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD).
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here.
INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases.
United States Only Generic Domains:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country
Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994
domains (see US Domain, below).
MIL - This domain is used by the US military.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Depends what you mean by GMT (it's often misunderstood -- GMT and UTC are the same thing). So you are technically correct (although we don't use the term GMT anymore except during the winter-time). But GMT is NOT the same as "UK time" - that is "BST" right now. So, if I understand this correctly, this will take place at 7:30 PM UK and Ireland time, and 8:30 PM in Central Europe. On 30/09/16 12:51, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Hearing in the case is scheduled for 130 PM Central Time (I think that is GMT -5) today ….
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: <http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/> http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 2:06 PM To: 'Jonathan Zuck' <JZuck@actonline.org>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; 'Raoul Plommer' <plommer@gmail.com>; Martin Boyle <martin.boyle@nominet.uk> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
Continuing Resolution passed. Lawsuit filed in Texas:
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/Net_Complaint_-_FILED.pdf
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
<http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com
From: Jonathan Zuck [mailto:JZuck@actonline.org] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:24 PM To: Lori Schulman; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Raoul Plommer'; Martin Boyle Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
Yes but things could still change.
Jonathan Zuck President ACT|The App Association www.ACTonline.org <http://%3cbr/%3ewww.ACTonline.org>
_____
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org <mailto:lschulman@inta.org> > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:01:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Raoul Plommer'; Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
I saw a tweet from ISOC to that effect but I don’t have confirmation.
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:48 PM To: 'Raoul Plommer' <plommer@gmail.com <mailto:plommer@gmail.com> >; Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> > Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
I heard the Rider preventing the IANA transition is OUT of the current Continuing Resolution. Can Steve or Becky confirm?
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
<http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Raoul Plommer Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:53 AM To: Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
Milton, I'm glad to see there's now been lots of responses to Ted Cruz's spin and hopefully this debunking will hit Trump's peddling as well. They probably won't learn to stop peddling lies but at least they've underestimated some knowledgeable people within ICANN, who are able to describe the IANA transition in layman's terms.
I learned a couple of things from that article, too.. =)
-Raoul
On 22 September 2016 at 18:37, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> > wrote:
Sorry for the delay, Nigel.
I agree with your conclusion.
As you note, the .int TLD is quite well identified other than for the international databases: there is no ambiguity in scope for organizations established by international treaties.
If I have understood correctly, international databases were transferred to be included under .arpa some long time ago.
Either way, I see no reason why .int should be opened up beyond organizations established by international treaty at this stage and certainly not without a properly constituted policy development process (which would need to establish a process for appointing a new operator).
None of this, of course, nullifies your conclusion!
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> ] Sent: 16 September 2016 12:05 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> > Cc: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
The only reference is descriptive rather than policy setting. .INT predates RFC1591.
It says, simply "This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases". (The latter term is undefined, but includes telephony applications).
You will find this text alongside all the other (at the time) existing generic domains as follows.
Much of what is written below has been changed, and much of what has been changed was changed outside ICANN.
I would be interested to know which policy decision classified some of the gTLDs in this list as "dehors ICANN", and which within.
But as two of the gTLDs described in RFC 1591 are currently extremely sensitive (MIL and GOV),from what I heard in the Senate hearing, perhaps its best not to ask for an answer to this until after the end of the month??
World Wide Generic Domains:
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains.
EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below).1
NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD).
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here.
INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases.
United States Only Generic Domains:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country
Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994
domains (see US Domain, below).
MIL - This domain is used by the US military.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_____
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
_____
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
18:30 UTC. On Friday, September 30, 2016, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Depends what you mean by GMT (it's often misunderstood -- GMT and UTC are the same thing).
So you are technically correct (although we don't use the term GMT anymore except during the winter-time).
But GMT is NOT the same as "UK time" - that is "BST" right now.
So, if I understand this correctly, this will take place at 7:30 PM UK and Ireland time, and 8:30 PM in Central Europe.
On 30/09/16 12:51, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Hearing in the case is scheduled for 130 PM Central Time (I think that is GMT -5) today ….
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: <http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/> http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 2:06 PM To: 'Jonathan Zuck' <JZuck@actonline.org>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; 'Raoul Plommer' <plommer@gmail.com>; Martin Boyle <martin.boyle@nominet.uk> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
Continuing Resolution passed. Lawsuit filed in Texas:
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/Net_ Complaint_-_FILED.pdf
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
<http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com
From: Jonathan Zuck [mailto:JZuck@actonline.org] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:24 PM To: Lori Schulman; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Raoul Plommer'; Martin Boyle Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
Yes but things could still change.
Jonathan Zuck President ACT|The App Association www.ACTonline.org <http://%3cbr/%3ewww.ACTonline.org>
_____
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org <mailto:lschulman@inta.org> > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:01:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Raoul Plommer'; Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
I saw a tweet from ISOC to that effect but I don’t have confirmation.
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:48 PM To: 'Raoul Plommer' <plommer@gmail.com <mailto:plommer@gmail.com> >; Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> > Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
I heard the Rider preventing the IANA transition is OUT of the current Continuing Resolution. Can Steve or Becky confirm?
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
<http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Raoul Plommer Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:53 AM To: Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
Milton, I'm glad to see there's now been lots of responses to Ted Cruz's spin and hopefully this debunking will hit Trump's peddling as well. They probably won't learn to stop peddling lies but at least they've underestimated some knowledgeable people within ICANN, who are able to describe the IANA transition in layman's terms.
I learned a couple of things from that article, too.. =)
-Raoul
On 22 September 2016 at 18:37, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> > wrote:
Sorry for the delay, Nigel.
I agree with your conclusion.
As you note, the .int TLD is quite well identified other than for the international databases: there is no ambiguity in scope for organizations established by international treaties.
If I have understood correctly, international databases were transferred to be included under .arpa some long time ago.
Either way, I see no reason why .int should be opened up beyond organizations established by international treaty at this stage and certainly not without a properly constituted policy development process (which would need to establish a process for appointing a new operator).
None of this, of course, nullifies your conclusion!
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> ] Sent: 16 September 2016 12:05 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>
Cc: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
The only reference is descriptive rather than policy setting. .INT predates RFC1591.
It says, simply "This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases". (The latter term is undefined, but includes telephony applications).
You will find this text alongside all the other (at the time) existing generic domains as follows.
Much of what is written below has been changed, and much of what has been changed was changed outside ICANN.
I would be interested to know which policy decision classified some of the gTLDs in this list as "dehors ICANN", and which within.
But as two of the gTLDs described in RFC 1591 are currently extremely sensitive (MIL and GOV),from what I heard in the Senate hearing, perhaps its best not to ask for an answer to this until after the end of the month??
World Wide Generic Domains:
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains.
EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below).1
NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD).
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here.
INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases.
United States Only Generic Domains:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country
Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994
domains (see US Domain, below).
MIL - This domain is used by the US military.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_____
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
_____
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Greg is right, GMT has gone domestic and is used in most of the UK in the winter. In the summer they uses British Summer Time (BST=UTC+1). Coordinated Universal Time is a reference time and not a time zone. Why is it called UTC and not its acronym CUT? That was the work of our friends at the ITU. ITC is a compromise between the English CUT and the French TUC. Good ITU has tasks to keep it busy. Sam On 9/30/2016 9:09 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
18:30 UTC.
On Friday, September 30, 2016, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
Depends what you mean by GMT (it's often misunderstood -- GMT and UTC are the same thing).
So you are technically correct (although we don't use the term GMT anymore except during the winter-time).
But GMT is NOT the same as "UK time" - that is "BST" right now.
So, if I understand this correctly, this will take place at 7:30 PM UK and Ireland time, and 8:30 PM in Central Europe.
On 30/09/16 12:51, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Hearing in the case is scheduled for 130 PM Central Time (I think that is GMT -5) today ….
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/ <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com>
My PGP Key: <http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ <http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/>> http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ <http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/>
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 2:06 PM To: 'Jonathan Zuck' <JZuck@actonline.org>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; 'Raoul Plommer' <plommer@gmail.com>; Martin Boyle <martin.boyle@nominet.uk> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
Continuing Resolution passed. Lawsuit filed in Texas:
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/Net_Complaint_-_FILED.pdf <https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/Net_Complaint_-_FILED.pdf>
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
<http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com>
From: Jonathan Zuck [mailto:JZuck@actonline.org] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:24 PM To: Lori Schulman; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Raoul Plommer'; Martin Boyle Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
Yes but things could still change.
Jonathan Zuck President ACT|The App Association www.ACTonline.org <http://www.ACTonline.org> <http://%3cbr/%3ewww.ACTonline.org <http://3ewww.ACTonline.org>>
_____
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org <mailto:lschulman@inta.org> > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:01:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Raoul Plommer'; Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
I saw a tweet from ISOC to that effect but I don’t have confirmation.
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:48 PM To: 'Raoul Plommer' <plommer@gmail.com <mailto:plommer@gmail.com> >; Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> > Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
I heard the Rider preventing the IANA transition is OUT of the current Continuing Resolution. Can Steve or Becky confirm?
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
<http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com>
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Raoul Plommer Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:53 AM To: Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
Milton, I'm glad to see there's now been lots of responses to Ted Cruz's spin and hopefully this debunking will hit Trump's peddling as well. They probably won't learn to stop peddling lies but at least they've underestimated some knowledgeable people within ICANN, who are able to describe the IANA transition in layman's terms.
I learned a couple of things from that article, too.. =)
-Raoul
On 22 September 2016 at 18:37, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> > wrote:
Sorry for the delay, Nigel.
I agree with your conclusion.
As you note, the .int TLD is quite well identified other than for the international databases: there is no ambiguity in scope for organizations established by international treaties.
If I have understood correctly, international databases were transferred to be included under .arpa some long time ago.
Either way, I see no reason why .int should be opened up beyond organizations established by international treaty at this stage and certainly not without a properly constituted policy development process (which would need to establish a process for appointing a new operator).
None of this, of course, nullifies your conclusion!
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> ] Sent: 16 September 2016 12:05 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> > Cc: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
The only reference is descriptive rather than policy setting. .INT predates RFC1591.
It says, simply "This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases". (The latter term is undefined, but includes telephony applications).
You will find this text alongside all the other (at the time) existing generic domains as follows.
Much of what is written below has been changed, and much of what has been changed was changed outside ICANN.
I would be interested to know which policy decision classified some of the gTLDs in this list as "dehors ICANN", and which within.
But as two of the gTLDs described in RFC 1591 are currently extremely sensitive (MIL and GOV),from what I heard in the Senate hearing, perhaps its best not to ask for an answer to this until after the end of the month??
World Wide Generic Domains:
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains.
EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below).1
NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD).
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here.
INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases.
United States Only Generic Domains:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country
Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994
domains (see US Domain, below).
MIL - This domain is used by the US military.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_____
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
_____
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
And since everyone is joining in the fun… ISO stands for the International Organisation for Standardisation, which is, of course, not the International Standards Organisation! (Perhaps those should have been spelt with a Z.) ;-)) CW On 30 Sep 2016, at 19:43, Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> wrote:
Greg is right, GMT has gone domestic and is used in most of the UK in the winter. In the summer they uses British Summer Time (BST=UTC+1). Coordinated Universal Time is a reference time and not a time zone. Why is it called UTC and not its acronym CUT? That was the work of our friends at the ITU. ITC is a compromise between the English CUT and the French TUC. Good ITU has tasks to keep it busy.
Sam
On 9/30/2016 9:09 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
18:30 UTC.
On Friday, September 30, 2016, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote: Depends what you mean by GMT (it's often misunderstood -- GMT and UTC are the same thing).
So you are technically correct (although we don't use the term GMT anymore except during the winter-time).
But GMT is NOT the same as "UK time" - that is "BST" right now.
So, if I understand this correctly, this will take place at 7:30 PM UK and Ireland time, and 8:30 PM in Central Europe.
On 30/09/16 12:51, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: Hearing in the case is scheduled for 130 PM Central Time (I think that is GMT -5) today ….
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: <http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/> http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 2:06 PM To: 'Jonathan Zuck' <JZuck@actonline.org>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; 'Raoul Plommer' <plommer@gmail.com>; Martin Boyle <martin.boyle@nominet.uk> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
Continuing Resolution passed. Lawsuit filed in Texas:
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/Net_Complaint_-_FILED.pdf
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
<http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com
From: Jonathan Zuck [mailto:JZuck@actonline.org] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:24 PM To: Lori Schulman; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Raoul Plommer'; Martin Boyle Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
Yes but things could still change.
Jonathan Zuck President ACT|The App Association www.ACTonline.org <http://%3cbr/%3ewww.ACTonline.org>
_____
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org <mailto:lschulman@inta.org> > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:01:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Raoul Plommer'; Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
I saw a tweet from ISOC to that effect but I don’t have confirmation.
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:48 PM To: 'Raoul Plommer' <plommer@gmail.com <mailto:plommer@gmail.com> >; Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> > Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
I heard the Rider preventing the IANA transition is OUT of the current Continuing Resolution. Can Steve or Becky confirm?
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
<http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Raoul Plommer Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:53 AM To: Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
Milton, I'm glad to see there's now been lots of responses to Ted Cruz's spin and hopefully this debunking will hit Trump's peddling as well. They probably won't learn to stop peddling lies but at least they've underestimated some knowledgeable people within ICANN, who are able to describe the IANA transition in layman's terms.
I learned a couple of things from that article, too.. =)
-Raoul
On 22 September 2016 at 18:37, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> > wrote:
Sorry for the delay, Nigel.
I agree with your conclusion.
As you note, the .int TLD is quite well identified other than for the international databases: there is no ambiguity in scope for organizations established by international treaties.
If I have understood correctly, international databases were transferred to be included under .arpa some long time ago.
Either way, I see no reason why .int should be opened up beyond organizations established by international treaty at this stage and certainly not without a properly constituted policy development process (which would need to establish a process for appointing a new operator).
None of this, of course, nullifies your conclusion!
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> ] Sent: 16 September 2016 12:05 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> > Cc: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
The only reference is descriptive rather than policy setting. .INT predates RFC1591.
It says, simply "This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases". (The latter term is undefined, but includes telephony applications).
You will find this text alongside all the other (at the time) existing generic domains as follows.
Much of what is written below has been changed, and much of what has been changed was changed outside ICANN.
I would be interested to know which policy decision classified some of the gTLDs in this list as "dehors ICANN", and which within.
But as two of the gTLDs described in RFC 1591 are currently extremely sensitive (MIL and GOV),from what I heard in the Senate hearing, perhaps its best not to ask for an answer to this until after the end of the month??
World Wide Generic Domains:
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains.
EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below).1
NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD).
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here.
INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases.
United States Only Generic Domains:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country
Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994
domains (see US Domain, below).
MIL - This domain is used by the US military.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_____
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
_____
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
And of course, the NGO known as ISO should not be confused with the IGO known as ISO (the International Sugar Organization <http://www.isosugar.org/>). On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Christopher Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
And since everyone is joining in the fun…
ISO stands for the International Organisation for Standardisation <http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html>, which is, of course, not the International Standards Organisation! (Perhaps those should have been spelt with a Z.)
;-)) CW
On 30 Sep 2016, at 19:43, Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> wrote:
Greg is right, GMT has gone domestic and is used in most of the UK in the winter. In the summer they uses British Summer Time (BST=UTC+1). Coordinated Universal Time is a reference time and not a time zone. Why is it called UTC and not its acronym CUT? That was the work of our friends at the ITU. ITC is a compromise between the English CUT and the French TUC. Good ITU has tasks to keep it busy.
Sam
On 9/30/2016 9:09 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
18:30 UTC.
On Friday, September 30, 2016, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Depends what you mean by GMT (it's often misunderstood -- GMT and UTC are the same thing).
So you are technically correct (although we don't use the term GMT anymore except during the winter-time).
But GMT is NOT the same as "UK time" - that is "BST" right now.
So, if I understand this correctly, this will take place at 7:30 PM UK and Ireland time, and 8:30 PM in Central Europe.
On 30/09/16 12:51, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Hearing in the case is scheduled for 130 PM Central Time (I think that is GMT -5) today ….
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: <http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/> http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 2:06 PM To: 'Jonathan Zuck' <JZuck@actonline.org>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; 'Raoul Plommer' <plommer@gmail.com>; Martin Boyle <martin.boyle@nominet.uk> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
Continuing Resolution passed. Lawsuit filed in Texas:
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/Net_Compla int_-_FILED.pdf
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
<http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com
From: Jonathan Zuck [mailto:JZuck@actonline.org] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:24 PM To: Lori Schulman; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Raoul Plommer'; Martin Boyle Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
Yes but things could still change.
Jonathan Zuck President ACT|The App Association www.ACTonline.org <http://www.actonline.org/> <http://%3cbr/% 3ewww.ACTonline.org <http://3ewww.actonline.org/>>
_____
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org <mailto:lschulman@inta.org> > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:01:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Raoul Plommer'; Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
I saw a tweet from ISOC to that effect but I don’t have confirmation.
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:48 PM To: 'Raoul Plommer' <plommer@gmail.com <mailto:plommer@gmail.com> >; Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> > Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
I heard the Rider preventing the IANA transition is OUT of the current Continuing Resolution. Can Steve or Becky confirm?
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
<http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Raoul Plommer Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:53 AM To: Martin Boyle Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
Milton, I'm glad to see there's now been lots of responses to Ted Cruz's spin and hopefully this debunking will hit Trump's peddling as well. They probably won't learn to stop peddling lies but at least they've underestimated some knowledgeable people within ICANN, who are able to describe the IANA transition in layman's terms.
I learned a couple of things from that article, too.. =)
-Raoul
On 22 September 2016 at 18:37, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> > wrote:
Sorry for the delay, Nigel.
I agree with your conclusion.
As you note, the .int TLD is quite well identified other than for the international databases: there is no ambiguity in scope for organizations established by international treaties.
If I have understood correctly, international databases were transferred to be included under .arpa some long time ago.
Either way, I see no reason why .int should be opened up beyond organizations established by international treaty at this stage and certainly not without a properly constituted policy development process (which would need to establish a process for appointing a new operator).
None of this, of course, nullifies your conclusion!
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> ] Sent: 16 September 2016 12:05 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.u k> > Cc: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
The only reference is descriptive rather than policy setting. .INT predates RFC1591.
It says, simply "This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases". (The latter term is undefined, but includes telephony applications).
You will find this text alongside all the other (at the time) existing generic domains as follows.
Much of what is written below has been changed, and much of what has been changed was changed outside ICANN.
I would be interested to know which policy decision classified some of the gTLDs in this list as "dehors ICANN", and which within.
But as two of the gTLDs described in RFC 1591 are currently extremely sensitive (MIL and GOV),from what I heard in the Senate hearing, perhaps its best not to ask for an answer to this until after the end of the month??
World Wide Generic Domains:
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains.
EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below).1
NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD).
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here.
INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases.
United States Only Generic Domains:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country
Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994
domains (see US Domain, below).
MIL - This domain is used by the US military.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_____
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
_____
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 04:12:03PM +0100, Nigel Roberts wrote:
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.
You and I may be disagreeing about what "registry" means. Or maybe "running". The IANA functions are those of operating a registry. In this sense, the IANA function of keeping the root zone up to date is just operating a DNS registry, in very much the way that (say) Afilias's job is to operate the org registry at the behest of PIR. Similarly, the protocol parameters registry function is to keep the protocol parameters of (say) IETF-defined registries up to date according to the instructions of the IETF. And so on. The point of the transition is partly, in my view, to clarify that function as opposed to the other, policy-development functions of the registry. In that sense, the policy function of the root zone will remain with the names community as convened within ICANN, and the operation will move post-transition to PTI. I think this is a valuable change, and one we should celebrate as an important clarification of two roles that have hitherto been conflated by at least some. (I noted this conflation on prominent display among some of the witnesses today at the US Senate Judiciary subcommittee. Not to mention some of the senators.) There remains an open question about the policy authority for INT. It appears that RFC 1591 has something to say about this, and there remains a set of IANA criteria (at http://www.iana.org/domains/int/policy) for such delegations. It seems to me that these are legitimate questions that could be addressed in some future effort to sort out such policy issues. Once that policy issue is properly sorted, I assume that the policy authority will be in a position to designate an appropriate technical operator for the zone in question. I will note that we have some precedent for this arrangement in the case of ARPA. ARPA's policy authority rests with the IAB, so in ICANN terms the IAB is the "registry operator" of ARPA. But IANA performs the technical operation of the ARPA domain, and follows the instructions of the IAB. I hope this at least makes clear what I mean. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
On 10-Sep-16 09:53, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
At that point evidence and logic will hold little sway against media "sound bites" that may well be completely false
so why aren't we putting out helpful but truthful soundbites? avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On Sep 12, 2016, at 12:24 AM, avri doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 10-Sep-16 09:53, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
At that point evidence and logic will hold little sway against media "sound bites" that may well be completely false
so why aren't we putting out helpful but truthful soundbites?
Avri - With respect to the current IANA transition stewardship activities, we will soon be entering the phase of diminishing media & public influence over the outcome as the US Congress appropriation folks and party leaders must come to a Continuing Resolution agreement rather quickly if it is to be passed in time to avoid a USG shutdown on 1 October 2016. (I do agree with the generic need for ongoing & consistent media/public/governmental education about our community and its activities, but with respect to this particular matter at hand, as it is now in the hands a very small number of IS congressmen as to whether NTIA will be allowed to continue with the IANA contract transition or if a specific prohibition on transition is added - thus requiring an extension to the IANA contract. There is some clear and highly targeted messaging underway, at the level appropriate to the audience – one example is this letter of support from a number of Internet related organizations in the US (thanks to Christian atI2C for arranging such!) - <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160912_tech_heavyweights_to_congress_transit... <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160912_tech_heavyweights_to_congress_transition_has_our_support/>> Note that overall we are in a very challenging period where most of the parties involved (both in favor and opposed to the IANA Stewardship transition) have much more immediate priorities when it comes to the overall USG appropriation negotiation underway, particularly given the upcoming US Presidential election. (this task would have been orders of magnitude less risky if done last year.) /John p.s. My views alone.
I think we're doing Ted Cruz et al a favor by not correcting them by somebody from the ICANN board, in the media. Why not phone a journalist and arrange an interview with one of the papers that published Ted Cruz's drivel? -Raoul On 13 September 2016 at 04:47, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> wrote:
On Sep 12, 2016, at 12:24 AM, avri doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 10-Sep-16 09:53, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
At that point evidence and logic will hold little sway against media "sound bites" that may well be completely false
so why aren't we putting out helpful but truthful soundbites?
Avri -
With respect to the current IANA transition stewardship activities, we will soon be entering the phase of diminishing media & public influence over the outcome as the US Congress appropriation folks and party leaders must come to a Continuing Resolution agreement rather quickly if it is to be passed in time to avoid a USG shutdown on 1 October 2016. (I do agree with the generic need for ongoing & consistent media/public/governmental education about our community and its activities, but with respect to this particular matter at hand, as it is now in the hands a very small number of IS congressmen as to whether NTIA will be allowed to continue with the IANA contract transition or if a specific prohibition on transition is added - thus requiring an extension to the IANA contract.
There is some clear and highly targeted messaging underway, at the level appropriate to the audience – one example is this letter of support from a number of Internet related organizations in the US (thanks to Christian atI2C for arranging such!) - <http://www.circleid.com/ posts/20160912_tech_heavyweights_to_congress_transition_has_our_support/>
Note that overall we are in a very challenging period where most of the parties involved (both in favor and opposed to the IANA Stewardship transition) have much more immediate priorities when it comes to the overall USG appropriation negotiation underway, particularly given the upcoming US Presidential election. (this task would have been orders of magnitude less risky if done last year.)
/John
p.s. My views alone.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Sep 14, 2016, at 9:20 AM, Raoul Plommer <plommer@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we're doing Ted Cruz et al a favor by not correcting them by somebody from the ICANN board, in the media. Why not phone a journalist and arrange an interview with one of the papers that published Ted Cruz's drivel?
Already done by ICANN’s General Counsel, in the Wall Street Journal (same publication that carries the Crovitz's editorial column which led to so much publicity on this matter.) <http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-icann-move-has-long-been-u-s-policy-14736128... <http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-icann-move-has-long-been-u-s-policy-1473612839>> /John === The Icann Move Has Long Been U.S. Policy Icann’s multistakeholder model has been supported by all presidential administrations since 1998. Sept. 11, 2016 12:54 p.m. ET L. Gordon Crovitz’s “An Internet Giveaway to the U.N. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165>” (Information Age, Aug. 29) is premised on errors of fact. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) does not enjoy an “antitrust exemption.” Icann isn’t and never has been exempted from antitrust laws. In 1998 the Commerce Department stated that the nonprofit organization to be created to fulfill the U.S. government’s directive to privatize the domain name system (Icann) would be subject to antitrust laws: “Applicable antitrust law will provide accountability to and protection for the international internet community.” If Commerce’s stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions are transitioned to the internet community, Icann will have no mandate, need or reason to seek to be overseen by another governmental group for protection. Icann’s multistakeholder model has been supported by all presidential administrations since 1998. Icann’s antitrust status has never changed. Icann has not been granted an antitrust exemption by any of its contracts with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. No ruling in Icann’s favor has ever cited an antitrust exemption as the rationale. This article disregards the diligent work of the Icann community, including U.S. businesses, academia, technical experts, end users and civil society, which developed a plan for the transition that specifically ensures that the role of the Commerce Department isn’t replaced by another government or intergovernmental organization. John Jeffrey General Counsel and Secretary Icann Los Angeles
Raoul I’ve been contacted by half a dozen newspapers, radio programs and writers in the past three days. One of my accomplishments: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/14/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-inc... ;-) I think we're doing Ted Cruz et al a favor by not correcting them by somebody from the ICANN board, in the media. Why not phone a journalist and arrange an interview with one of the papers that published Ted Cruz's drivel? -Raoul
participants (19)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Andrew Sullivan -
avri doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Erika Mann -
Greg Shatan -
John Curran -
Jonathan Zuck -
Lori Schulman -
Marilyn Cade -
Martin Boyle -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Raoul Plommer -
Sam Lanfranco -
Steve Crocker