RFC 1591 described the environment and conditions surrounding the root zone at the time. It was intended to be a snapshot, an image in time, of how things were. A description of how it was structured and what rules were in place does not make it a policy document, it was/is a narrative of the times. I am dubious about your recommendation to lump .INT in with other TLDs that are clearly bound by a single sovereign policy. The .INT space was and now is again based on the core premise of membership being a treaty organization (there remain some legacy entries when the rules were different for .INT). It is a subtle difference, but worth considering. The .INT space does not fall cleanly or neatly into RFC 1591 dispute resolution nor is there an entity which _could_ enter into a contract with ICANN. It really is a different animal. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 19March2015Thursday, at 4:51, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:16:34AM +0000, Marika Konings wrote:
Please find attached version 2.2.1 of the draft transition plan. This version includes the following minor revisions:
* Edits to address the points raised by Andrew
Thanks for this.
I still wonder about the discussion of RFC 1591. The text still says, "This document was not meant to be a policy document …," yet in the paragraph immediately before that it says, "It is a short document intended to outline how the domain name system was structured at that time and what rules were in place to decide on its expansion." In other words, it's a document that outlines the policies then governing the root zone. I'm not sure how else one might describe it, but maybe "policy" is being used here in a way I don't understand.
In the paragraph about FOIWG Recommendations, it says "in light of the Internet today". That strikes me as potentially too great a scope. I'd suggest, "in light of the move of the IANA function to ICANN." I _think_ that is the whole of the scope of the FOIWG Recommendations.
Later on the same page, about policy disputes, we have, "Currently RFC1591 only applies to ccTLDs, .GOV, and .MIL and most of these do not have any contracts which specify a dispute resolution mechanism with ICANN." It seems to me that RFC 1591 applies to INT as well, though perhaps the dispute resolution mechanism doesn't. I can't tell from the context whether this sentence is intended to say, "Currently, the dispute resolution mechanisms in RFC 1591 …." Perhaps just adding INT to the list would help.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship