Currently its policy on eligibility is “Only U.S. postsecondary institutions that are institutionally accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education's list of Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies (see recognized accrediting bodies) may obtain an Internet name in the .edu domain. These include both "Regional Institutional Accrediting Agencies" and "National Institutional and Specialized Accrediting Bodies" recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.”  That seems to me to put it in the same group as the others.

As Christopher says, .gov, .edu and .mil are really quite similar to US specialist ccTLDs – often dealt with at the second level for ccTLDs.  In that light, I think it is irrelevant who their registrants are (that is a national issue).  But I do not agree that it “belongs in” (by which I mean eligible to be a member of) the GNSO (and neither does it fit in the ccNSO).

And I really do think we would be wasting our time to “clearly and narrowly” define education.  In .edu’s case, that is for Educause to work out.

MB

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of CW Lists
Sent: 14 May 2015 22:58
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] .mil and .gov (and maybe .edu)

> Although not mentioned, .edu falls into roughly the same category.

Well, very roughly. Over the years, .edu has 'wobbled' between a strictly US University Domain and something else (ill defined) including lower levels of education in the US and an international dimension.

Before CWG goes further, someone should ask the Registry (¿Educause?) for a list of the current Registrants.

My personal expectation would be that we shall finish up classifying .edu as a normal gTLD with a registration policy. However, it is NOT an 'open' gTLD. In the era of on-line courses, what is 'education' needs to be clearly and narrowly defined. Meanwhile, many countries use an .sld in their ccTLD for their Universities. e.g. <http://www.soas.ac.uk/>

Regards

CW

On 14 May 2015, at 21:49, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

In yesterday's Congressional hearings, the issue of .mil and .gov was brought up, due at least in part to the Defending Internet Freedom Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5737, and an opinion piece in US News & World Report. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/13/congress-should-ask-tough-questions-about-icann-domain-name-transition

The Defending Internet Freedom Act says (from the summary):

· the U.S. government will be granted ownership of the ".gov" and ".mil" top-level domains and specified servers will be maintained in the United States;

A couple of the Representatives raised concerns that .gov and .mil would be vulnerable to a transfer away from the USG, and asked the witnesses if ownership (or perpetual control) of .gov and .mil by the US should be ensured in the transition. Several panelists answered in the affirmative and I don't believe any opposed.

We have not really discussed this issue.  I think it behooves us to deal with it.  Given the historical and current use of these two domains< I would not expect too much controversy.

Although not mentioned, .edu falls into roughly the same category.  We should consider if we should accord it similar treatment.

Greg

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