Hello all,
actually the Management of .INT is a high stakes political game.
The ITU has affirmed for many years that they wish to be managing .INT
Two references:
- Response from the ITU on Response to Request for Comments on the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions; National
Telecommunications and Informat
ion Administration, Docket No. 110207099–1099–01, RIN 0660–XA23;
published in the Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February
25, 2011, page 10569
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/ITU_E910_IANA%20NOI%20response_30-03-2011_final.pdf
- ITU Recommendation E.910
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.910-200512-I
Given this political hot potato, would it be wise for ICANN to simply
divest itself of it within 2 years or should it hold on to it?
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 26/02/2015 16:29, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Hi, Andrew
Fiona Alexander of NTIA has made a frequent point of telling us that
.int is currently in the IANA contract (C.2.9.4) and a complete proposal
will have to decide what to do with it.
I personally believe that ICANN and/or IANA should get rid of this
function. It's not central to their missions and I'd like to maintain a
clean line between the root zone registry and TLD registry operators.
By the same token I think the stakes are pretty low on this one and if
we just said "it stays with ICANN" most planets would remain in their
orbits.
A better middle ground might be to specify, as part of the transition,
that ICANN will come up with a plan to divest itself of it within 2 years.
-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:30 AM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A
liaison
from the Board to CWG)
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:
We can discuss the conditions around ICANNs administration of .int
today,
but responding to your comment : "I don't believe ICANN/IANA is in any
competition with anyone to operate the int registry, because the USG
specifies the operator and, as far as I know, hasn't put the operation
out to
bid"
- I think it is expected from the community, at least from the GAC
side,
that the CWG discuss and have thoughts on what we see as the best
solution for the .int post transition - that is when US GOV no longer
have
the possibility to specify/change through a bid.
I am prepared to believe that lots of people think the specification of
the
operator of int is covered in this transition, but I don't actually see
that in
any of the materials. The current NTIA-ICANN agreement is for the
_operation_ of the int zone, but not for the _policy_ of it. That
seems to me
to be different from the root zone, where the policies governing the
root
zone (all the co-ordination and so on) are also vested in ICANN's
policy side.
In other words, ICANN is performing the technical functions for int,
but not
the registry operator function broadly construed. This is rather like
(for
example) org: PIR is the registry operator, and it contracts to Afilias
to
perform the technical functions. PIR could pull that technical
operations
contract and give it to someone else.
Contrast this with (say) info, where ICANN has delegated operation of
that
namespace (including policy) to Afilias.
I am entirely prepared to be wrong about this (I'm often wrong), but if
I am
then I'd like a pointer to the text that shows it.
I am not, please note, suggesting that int isn't a problem. I'm just
noting
that it might be a problem that we don't have to solve in order to
undertake
the transition. Any burden we can shed at this late date is an
advantage to
us, I suggest.
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
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship