Hi, It seems to me that this could be one of the considerations of the post transition consideration on the long term future .int. The intersts of the .int registrants another, as well as whatever may come out of the GAC considerations. I think it is is enough to indicate there will full consideration of all issues, we do not need to enumerate the origin of the various opinions we may or may not get. avri On 05-Jun-15 08:30, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Forwarding on behalf of Richard Hill
On 6/5/15, 7:43 AM, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
PLEASE FORWARD TO CWG-Stewardship
=================================
I see that the matter of .int continues to be discussed on this list. I refer to Milton's message at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003391.html
As Milton correctly points out, .int is not used by governments, it is used by intergovernmental organizations. And the representatives in GAC are typically not the people who represent governments in, say, ILO or WHO.
As I've pointed out before on this list, there was a formal process to consult the interested parties, intergovernmental organizations, and the result was the unanimous approval of Recommendation ITU-T E.910.
I don't see any reason to posit that the requirements and desires of intergovernmental organizations have changed since the approval of E.910, so I don't understand why implementation, to the extent practicable, of E.910 should not be made part of the transition.
To be clear: I am formally asking this group to include in its transition proposal the requirement that E.910 be implemented to the extent practicable as part of the transition.
Best, Richard
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus