Martin, I don't have any problem with ICANN running .int until after the transition and there has been time to sort things out. Sorry if I implied otherwise. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 11:59 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain That sounds like policy on the fly, Chuck, and there is my aversion again. Sorry, but I'm having problems here! Very crudely, why is it ok for Verisign to run .com and the RZM, but not icann to run for a little longer .int until after we've sorted IANA stewardship? And, by the way, I don't have any axe to grind other than we have coherent policy thinking. Martin Sent from my iPhone
On 27 May 2015, at 16:48, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
But it is a new requirement that would be implemented after transition.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 11:35 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:26:24AM -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
and i agree it can wait as long as long as the various bylaws are clear about neither ICANN nor IANA running a TLD regsitry.
This is a new requirement you're introducing, though, right? For that's not what thy bylaws say now.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ 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