Bearing in mind the discussions over the years on the operation of .int, identifying a specific date for divesting seems to me to be arbitrary. As Keith notes, it doesn't look as if there's any current demand, so the process is pretty uncertain, too. Hence I think that identifying a process or a forum for moving forward, rather than plucking figures out of the air, would be a better approach. Leaving it to the GAC to assess and make recommendations on next steps would seem to me to be entirely appropriate in this case: it would be for the GAC to define its own timetable and processes. MB -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Keith Davidson Sent: 18 May 2015 23:02 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain Surely we could recommend that ICANN divest itself of .int within a x year period after the transition? I seem to recall there was a strong interest from the ITU in taking over .int at some point in the past, but has not re-emerged in anything I have seen for several years. I thought it might have been formally proposed by ITU during the NOI and FNOI stages of the NTIA / IANA renewal process. ITU made submissions, but the submissions did not refer to .int iirc. Cheers Keith On 18/05/2015 10:10 a.m., Milton L Mueller wrote:
I care. That's the kind of thing we should do - at least propose to ask them and initiate a process to change it if they want to.
-----Original Message-----
Hi,
Do we have any idea of what the .int 2nd level registrants want? Do we care?
avri
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship .
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship