Forwarding this message on behalf of Richard Hill. On 5/4/15, 5:47 AM, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:

Please forward this to CWG-Stewardship.

I note David Conrad's comment regarding E.910 at:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-April/002863.html

David says:

"Well, it might have been the aspiration of folks who attended the E.int (later E.910) ITU meetings in Geneva (which did not include ICANN staff to my knowledge < I was general manager of IANA at that time so I probably would've known)."

Actually the workshop that kicked off the work was co-hosted by ITU-T and ICANN, see:

http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/int/icann.html

It was co-chaired by the President and CEO of ICANN and a senior official from WIPO, see:

http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/int/index.html

As I recall, a member of the ICANN staff participated. ICANN provided an input to the workshop.

Further discussions were held in an editor's group that was open to all, and whose outputs were publicly available. See for example:

http://www.itu.int/md/T01-SG02-040518-TD-WP1-0167/en

As I recall, a member of the ICANN staff participated in at least some of those meetings.

"That was a long time ago and many things have changed. I personally don't think it should have any bearing on how .INT is dealt with post-transition."

I doubt that the requirements of "organizations established by international treaties" have changed since 2005, so I don't understand why the requirements formulated by those organizations, and set forth in E.910, should not have any bearing in how .INT is dealt with.

Anybody who is interested in the history of .int might wish to have a look at the documents at:

http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/int/documents/index.html

and at:

http://www.itu.int/md/T01-SG02-040518-TD-WP1-0168/en

Best, Richard