I`m a bit surprised about the assumption that any/all pre-existing TLDs would somehow require a multistakeholder approach to determining who the registry operator should be - as in, .coop, .museum, etc, But again - we shouldn’t try to solve this in the CWG. MM: Elise, no one said all existing gTLDs should be redelegated by an MS process. Indeed, that is a rather fantastic construction. The reason .INT is anomalous is that its original delegation was completely outside of the ICANN process, or any established process. No one has provided a credible argument as to why the root zone administrator should be running a TLD and there have been many unrefuted arguments as to why it should not be; figuring out what to do with INT is about that. In other words, getting.INT out of IANA as an extension of the transition process has nothing to do with any sponsored TLD. It is administrative cleanup work.

"Given that, leaving things this way until after the transition (and saying that's what's going to happen) seems entirely reasonable. It's also achievable immediately, which is another good reason to prefer such an approach over others. We have _far_ too many loose ends not to tie this one off as quickly as possible" - Andrew, agree Elise -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Andrew Sullivan Sendt: 27. mai 2015 16:53 Til: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 02:23:16PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:

MM: Elise, no one said all existing gTLDs should be redelegated by an MS process. Indeed, that is a rather fantastic construction.

Several people do appear to be arguing that a multistakeholder process is important for this case, and I don't actually see much in the way of argument about why int is a super special case. Some particular responses below.

The reason .INT is anomalous is that its original delegation was completely outside of the ICANN process, or any established process.

Since that's also sort of true of COM, NET, and UK (to pick three obvious ones), I think the premise is either in pretty serious trouble, or else you're making an argument that at least a large number of important TLDs fall into this category. Are you sure you want to make that argument? At the same time, I said "sort of true" because it's simply false that the original delegation was outside any established process. It fell inside the IANA processes at the time it was created. We know that because it's written down. The IANA had an enormous amount of leeway at the time INT was created, but in any case the TLD is documented in the appropriate policy documentation from that period (this is why I got so exercised about that text about 1591 not being a policy document). In fact, the bigger problem is UK, which is _not_ documented in 1591 and is an exception to the policy in that document (and the earlier RFC 920).

No one has provided a credible argument as to why the root zone administrator should be running a TLD

This places the burden of proof on the wrong party. If you think there is a restriction here that ought to be in place, it's necessary to argue for it (more on that below). Moreover, I think you are ignoring an important argument that has been made and, as near as I can see, hasn't been refuted or even tackled: this is how the situation is now, it has been working (to the extent that INT is useful to anyone) for some time, and the issue has been punted to the GAC, which will presumably in good time come up with something to do about this "international organization" special domain. Given that, leaving things this way until after the transition (and saying that's what's going to happen) seems entirely reasonable. It's also achievable immediately, which is another good reason to prefer such an approach over others. We have _far_ too many loose ends not to tie this one off as quickly as possible.

and there have been many unrefuted arguments as to why it should not be

The only actual argument I've seen (i.e. a thing with premises, as opposed to strong assertions that something would be right) relies on the premise that ICANN's bylaws restrict this behaviour, and as more than one person has pointed out that isn't exactly true. INT does not fall afoul of the bylaws because of the ways in which it is unusual. It's not an argument to assert something. That's how I describe the bulk of the claims I've seen about why ICANN shouldn't run INT (at least through the transition).

In other words, getting.INT out of IANA as an extension of the transition process has nothing to do with any sponsored TLD. It is administrative cleanup work.

If I understand you correctly, I could restate that as, "Getting INT out of IANA as an extension of the transition process has nothing to do with IANA as such. It is administrative cleanup work." If that is a fair restatement, then I'd like to suggest that admisitrative cleanup work can wait until after the transition, because we have too little time and too much to do to clean up every untidy administrative corner. Indeed, this sounds like another case of people using the transition as an opportunity for axe-grinding. I think we should discourage that. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 03:22:50PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:

Andrew, please. Are any of these TLDs run by IANA? If they were, I would definitely be making that argument. They are not so they are irrelevant to this discussion.

Your argument didn't include the premise "and is run by IANA". The only actually active premise in the argument reduces to, "A multistakeholder process for redelegation of a TLD is required if and only if that TLD is operated by IANA." Right? Does this apply to domains other than TLDs?

Let's try to stay focused. Though some people seem determined to make mountains out of these molehills the differences we are talking about are quite small. (see below).

It seems to me that those who revivified the entire INT topic are the ones who got to work on piling up the soil. Some of us thought this topic was closed.

That argument has been made. Clear division of responsibility, focused mission for IANA, avoidance of the (admittedly minor) exception to the established principle that ICANN should not be running entities that are in the same business it is regulating, separation of policy and implementation (running a TLD makes IANA a policy maker).

I think these arguments have in fact been addressed, but I'll try again. On the "clear division" issue, IANA is already doing more than one thing. This is the operation of a registry, and it's exactly the same sort of operation of a registry as another registry they operate (the one for the root zone, as opposed to the INT zone). There is not an "established principle" of the sort you refer to there; there are only the ICANN bylaws, and it is not obvious that there is any current problem because it is not clear that INT falls into the same category as other TLDs and therefore that ICANN is regulating it at all. Finally, there is no obvious sense in which there is any current policy-making to do, and therefore I reject the last premise.

You are overlooking the simple fact that we are ALL agreeing to leave the actual redelegation to after the transition. Here is the proposed wording:

I couldn't tell that you were agreeing to that. But anyway,

...

Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders immediately after the implementation of the IANA stewardship transition

With the addition of some recognition that it is anomalous for IANA to be doing this.

Like others, I think the word "immediately" is unnecessary and raises a complication (because the "relevant stakeholders" class is, apparently, an area of some disagreement, and if it turns out to be something that itself needs to be hammered out using ICANN processes it might take some time). Moreover, I am opposed to the claim that it is anomalous for IANA to be doing this, because (1) they run another names registry and (2) they've been running this one for some time. There's no anomaly at all. Apart from that, I have no real issue with that text (and I think you'll find in the archives from February a suggestion from me that this sort of approach be used). Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 04:55:03PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:

...

Your argument didn't include the premise "and is run by IANA". The only actually active premise in the argument reduces to, "A multistakeholder process for redelegation of a TLD is required if and only if that TLD is operated by IANA." Right?

Completely wrong. We are discussing the fate of the .INT domain. Nothing else.

So the analogy between INT and other domains is completely inoperative, then, and any argument about how it is or is not covered by ICANN processes is just irrelevant? I guess I don't understand. Anyway, as long as the text about this is the minimal one (i.e. without the problematic "immediately" I noted), I'm ok with it. I've been arguing for "as little as possible" on this and other peripheral topics for some time now. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

I don't think it matters but .com and .net along with .org, .edu and .gov were delegated via a competitive RFP by the National Science Foundation in 1992. I don't go back far enough to know how they were delegated by NSF before then except that NSI provided registration services via a subcontract in 1991 and 1992. 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 10:53 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 02:23:16PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:

MM: Elise, no one said all existing gTLDs should be redelegated by an MS process. Indeed, that is a rather fantastic construction.

Several people do appear to be arguing that a multistakeholder process is important for this case, and I don't actually see much in the way of argument about why int is a super special case. Some particular responses below.

The reason .INT is anomalous is that its original delegation was completely outside of the ICANN process, or any established process.

Since that's also sort of true of COM, NET, and UK (to pick three obvious ones), I think the premise is either in pretty serious trouble, or else you're making an argument that at least a large number of important TLDs fall into this category. Are you sure you want to make that argument? At the same time, I said "sort of true" because it's simply false that the original delegation was outside any established process. It fell inside the IANA processes at the time it was created. We know that because it's written down. The IANA had an enormous amount of leeway at the time INT was created, but in any case the TLD is documented in the appropriate policy documentation from that period (this is why I got so exercised about that text about 1591 not being a policy document). In fact, the bigger problem is UK, which is _not_ documented in 1591 and is an exception to the policy in that document (and the earlier RFC 920).

No one has provided a credible argument as to why the root zone administrator should be running a TLD

This places the burden of proof on the wrong party. If you think there is a restriction here that ought to be in place, it's necessary to argue for it (more on that below). Moreover, I think you are ignoring an important argument that has been made and, as near as I can see, hasn't been refuted or even tackled: this is how the situation is now, it has been working (to the extent that INT is useful to anyone) for some time, and the issue has been punted to the GAC, which will presumably in good time come up with something to do about this "international organization" special domain. Given that, leaving things this way until after the transition (and saying that's what's going to happen) seems entirely reasonable. It's also achievable immediately, which is another good reason to prefer such an approach over others. We have _far_ too many loose ends not to tie this one off as quickly as possible.

and there have been many unrefuted arguments as to why it should not be

The only actual argument I've seen (i.e. a thing with premises, as opposed to strong assertions that something would be right) relies on the premise that ICANN's bylaws restrict this behaviour, and as more than one person has pointed out that isn't exactly true. INT does not fall afoul of the bylaws because of the ways in which it is unusual. It's not an argument to assert something. That's how I describe the bulk of the claims I've seen about why ICANN shouldn't run INT (at least through the transition).

In other words, getting.INT out of IANA as an extension of the transition process has nothing to do with any sponsored TLD. It is administrative cleanup work.

If I understand you correctly, I could restate that as, "Getting INT out of IANA as an extension of the transition process has nothing to do with IANA as such. It is administrative cleanup work." If that is a fair restatement, then I'd like to suggest that admisitrative cleanup work can wait until after the transition, because we have too little time and too much to do to clean up every untidy administrative corner. Indeed, this sounds like another case of people using the transition as an opportunity for axe-grinding. I think we should discourage that. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Hi, 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. avri On 27-May-15 11:17, Avri Doria wrote:

Hi,

Though we did use a very complicated process to redelegate .org way back when. So there is precedence for developing an intentional method of making such a decision.

I agree that it is not obvious why this decision belongs to the GAC and not to a CWG Though of course GAC advice would be useful as ever.

avri

On 27-May-15 10:23, Milton L Mueller wrote:

...

I`m a bit surprised about theassumption that any/all pre-existing TLDs would somehow require a multistakeholder approach to determining who the registry operator should be - as in, .coop, .museum, etc, But again - we shouldn’t try to solve this in the CWG.

MM: Elise, no one said all existing gTLDs should be redelegated by an MS process. Indeed, that is a rather fantastic construction. The reason .INT is anomalous is that its original delegation was completely outside of the ICANN process, or any established process. No one has provided a credible argument as to why the root zone administrator should be running a TLD and there have been many unrefuted arguments as to why it should not be; figuring out what to do with INT is about that. In other words, getting.INT out of IANA as an extension of the transition process has nothing to do with any sponsored TLD. It is administrative cleanup work.

_______________________________________________ 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. http://www.avast.com

_______________________________________________ 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. http://www.avast.com

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

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