Dear CWG colleagues, - Lise and Jonathan Following the discussion on .int on the CWG list , I like to comment. On earlier process: NTIA has previously asked the CWG for considerations around the faith of the .int domain, - as part of the development of a IANA transition proposal, - so the topic is not "invented" by members of the CWG. I was set as DT lead on .int /DT-H because of the obvious interest for GAC/governments in beeing active part of the discussions on the future administration of the .int. domain. The .int case was early on decided to be a priority 2 subject in the CWG, and a majority of the very few voices that was involved in the discussion on .int meant that it was as unnecessary to give direction for a solution on .int as part of the CWG proposal. As a consequence there has not been set aside time in the CWG for discussion or debate on .int during F2F in Istanbul or later at the CWG conference calls. .int was mentioned during our CWG meeting #38, were it came a request from the CWG Chairs to the GAC members/participants in the CWG for a proposal on text on the .int. A response to this was forwarded to the CWG chairs and the CWG as a whole on the 16th of April. "Dear Lise and Jonathan I learned from my colleagues in the GAC that it was mentioned on meeting #38 in the intensive workdays that you are waiting for text from the GAC members/participants on .int /DT-H.
From what I understood from our previous meetings in the CWG, - it was decided by the chairs/you that you would give feedback to the whole CWG on your priorities on the DT priority 2 subjects, and come back to the CWG on this. I see that Olivier has asked the question about the status of the DT priority 2 items today on email today also.
Anyway - I have attached a fact sheet on .int that has been discussed between the GAC participants/members in the CWG. This fact sheet is meant to document/sum up the status quo for .int, and be the basis for a very simple advise from CWG on .int - referencing directly to RFC 1591, and stating that provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA, - there is no need for any changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the transition. Elise" I like to underline that I have forwarder this email/suggestion to the GAC list, - asking if any GAC members have any comment or like to give suggestion for another advice on .int for the transition itself. I have not received any comments re alternative text. On the way forward/final proposal: I agree that we shouldn't try to design the future solution on .int administration in the final CWG proposal - from the discussion online we couldn't do it even if we tried - there is obviously too much to debate even in initial discussions on legitimate interest, relevant stakeholders, inclusive process for the making of a proposal and so - and the CWG is not in a position to decide on these issues. So I would like to repeat earlier GAC member/participant input on .int. case, and suggest that we say something like this: CWG has considered the .int domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA we don't see any need for changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders post transition. Kind regards Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative Networks Department Norwegian Communications Authority e-mail: ekl@nkom.no<mailto:ekl@nkom.no> Mobile: +47 90190947
I was comfortable with the approach in this email until the very end, when I got to the reference to "relevant stakeholders." Who are the irrelevant stakeholders, and who decides who is relevant and who is irrelevant? If you take the "multi" out of multistakeholder, eventually you end up with a cartel, which is not a form of governance, much less good governance. Greg On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg@nkom.no> wrote:
Dear CWG colleagues, - Lise and Jonathan
Following the discussion on .int on the CWG list , I like to comment.
*On earlier process:*
NTIA has previously asked the CWG for considerations around the faith of the .int domain, - as part of the development of a IANA transition proposal, - so the topic is not “invented” by members of the CWG. I was set as DT lead on .int /DT-H because of the obvious interest for GAC/governments in beeing active part of the discussions on the future administration of the .int. domain.
The .int case was early on decided to be a priority 2 subject in the CWG, and a majority of the very few voices that was involved in the discussion on .int meant that it was as unnecessary to give direction for a solution on .int as part of the CWG proposal. As a consequence there has not been set aside time in the CWG for discussion or debate on .int during F2F in Istanbul or later at the CWG conference calls. .int was mentioned during our CWG meeting #38, were it came a request from the CWG Chairs to the GAC members/participants in the CWG for a proposal on text on the .int. A response to this was forwarded to the CWG chairs and the CWG as a whole on the 16th of April.
*"Dear Lise and Jonathan*
*I learned from my colleagues in the GAC that it was mentioned on meeting #38 in the intensive workdays that you are waiting for text from the GAC members/participants on .int /DT-H. *
*From what I understood from our previous meetings in the CWG, - it was decided by the chairs/you that you would give feedback to the whole CWG on your priorities on the DT priority 2 subjects, and come back to the CWG on this. I see that Olivier has asked the question about the status of the DT priority 2 items today on email today also. *
*Anyway - I have attached a fact sheet on .int that has been discussed between the GAC participants/members in the CWG. This fact sheet is meant to document/sum up the status quo for .int, and be the basis for a very simple advise from CWG on .int - referencing directly to RFC 1591, and stating that provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA, - **there is no need for any changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the transition.*
*Elise”*
I like to underline that I have forwarder this email/suggestion to the GAC list, - asking if any GAC members have any comment or like to give suggestion for another advice on .int for the transition itself. I have not received any comments re alternative text.
*On the way forward/final proposal:*
I agree that we shouldn’t try to design the future solution on .int administration in the final CWG proposal - from the discussion online we couldn’t do it even if we tried - there is obviously too much to debate even in initial discussions on legitimate interest, relevant stakeholders, inclusive process for the making of a proposal and so - and the CWG is not in a position to decide on these issues. So I would like to repeat earlier GAC member/participant input on .int. case, and suggest that we say something like this:
CWG has considered the .int domain, and concluded that *provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA* we don’t see any need for changes in the management of the .int domain *in conjunction with the transition*. Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders post transition.
Kind regards
Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg
Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative
Networks Department
Norwegian Communications Authority
e-mail: ekl@nkom.no
Mobile: +47 90190947
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
What is unclear was the distinct offer/request by several members of this list to participate in DT-H discussion and as far as I can tell, no DT-H meeting was ever held, no participation for the larger community, no participation from registrants in the .INT space, only email to the GAC. I suppose that running the design team in such a way as to exclude participation by interested parties is acceptable, but the optics look poor from here. manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 22May2015Friday, at 7:30, Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no> wrote:
Dear CWG colleagues, - Lise and Jonathan
Following the discussion on .int on the CWG list , I like to comment.
On earlier process:
NTIA has previously asked the CWG for considerations around the faith of the .int domain, - as part of the development of a IANA transition proposal, - so the topic is not “invented” by members of the CWG. I was set as DT lead on .int /DT-H because of the obvious interest for GAC/governments in beeing active part of the discussions on the future administration of the .int. domain.
The .int case was early on decided to be a priority 2 subject in the CWG, and a majority of the very few voices that was involved in the discussion on .int meant that it was as unnecessary to give direction for a solution on .int as part of the CWG proposal. As a consequence there has not been set aside time in the CWG for discussion or debate on .int during F2F in Istanbul or later at the CWG conference calls. .int was mentioned during our CWG meeting #38, were it came a request from the CWG Chairs to the GAC members/participants in the CWG for a proposal on text on the .int. A response to this was forwarded to the CWG chairs and the CWG as a whole on the 16th of April.
"Dear Lise and Jonathan
I learned from my colleagues in the GAC that it was mentioned on meeting #38 in the intensive workdays that you are waiting for text from the GAC members/participants on .int /DT-H.
From what I understood from our previous meetings in the CWG, - it was decided by the chairs/you that you would give feedback to the whole CWG on your priorities on the DT priority 2 subjects, and come back to the CWG on this. I see that Olivier has asked the question about the status of the DT priority 2 items today on email today also.
Anyway - I have attached a fact sheet on .int that has been discussed between the GAC participants/members in the CWG. This fact sheet is meant to document/sum up the status quo for .int, and be the basis for a very simple advise from CWG on .int - referencing directly to RFC 1591, and stating that provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA, - there is no need for any changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the transition.
Elise”
I like to underline that I have forwarder this email/suggestion to the GAC list, - asking if any GAC members have any comment or like to give suggestion for another advice on .int for the transition itself. I have not received any comments re alternative text.
On the way forward/final proposal:
I agree that we shouldn’t try to design the future solution on .int administration in the final CWG proposal - from the discussion online we couldn’t do it even if we tried - there is obviously too much to debate even in initial discussions on legitimate interest, relevant stakeholders, inclusive process for the making of a proposal and so - and the CWG is not in a position to decide on these issues. So I would like to repeat earlier GAC member/participant input on .int. case, and suggest that we say something like this:
CWG has considered the .int domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA we don’t seeany need for changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders post transition.
Kind regards
Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative Networks Department Norwegian Communications Authority e-mail: ekl@nkom.no Mobile: +47 90190947
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I think handing this off to the GAC without participation from stakeholders (including but not limited to interested parties) is not just optically poor, it is substantively poor. On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:24 AM, manning <bmanning@karoshi.com> wrote:
What is unclear was the distinct offer/request by several members of this list to participate in DT-H discussion and as far as I can tell, no DT-H meeting was ever held, no participation for the larger community, no participation from registrants in the .INT space, only email to the GAC.
I suppose that running the design team in such a way as to exclude participation by interested parties is acceptable, but the optics look poor from here.
manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102
On 22May2015Friday, at 7:30, Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no> wrote:
Dear CWG colleagues, - Lise and Jonathan
Following the discussion on .int on the CWG list , I like to comment.
On earlier process:
NTIA has previously asked the CWG for considerations around the faith of the .int domain, - as part of the development of a IANA transition proposal, - so the topic is not “invented” by members of the CWG. I was set as DT lead on .int /DT-H because of the obvious interest for GAC/governments in beeing active part of the discussions on the future administration of the .int. domain.
The .int case was early on decided to be a priority 2 subject in the CWG, and a majority of the very few voices that was involved in the discussion on .int meant that it was as unnecessary to give direction for a solution on .int as part of the CWG proposal. As a consequence there has not been set aside time in the CWG for discussion or debate on .int during F2F in Istanbul or later at the CWG conference calls. .int was mentioned during our CWG meeting #38, were it came a request from the CWG Chairs to the GAC members/participants in the CWG for a proposal on text on the .int. A response to this was forwarded to the CWG chairs and the CWG as a whole on the 16th of April.
"Dear Lise and Jonathan
I learned from my colleagues in the GAC that it was mentioned on meeting #38 in the intensive workdays that you are waiting for text from the GAC members/participants on .int /DT-H.
From what I understood from our previous meetings in the CWG, - it was decided by the chairs/you that you would give feedback to the whole CWG on your priorities on the DT priority 2 subjects, and come back to the CWG on this. I see that Olivier has asked the question about the status of the DT priority 2 items today on email today also.
Anyway - I have attached a fact sheet on .int that has been discussed between the GAC participants/members in the CWG. This fact sheet is meant to document/sum up the status quo for .int, and be the basis for a very simple advise from CWG on .int - referencing directly to RFC 1591, and stating that provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA, - there is no need for any changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the transition.
Elise”
I like to underline that I have forwarder this email/suggestion to the GAC list, - asking if any GAC members have any comment or like to give suggestion for another advice on .int for the transition itself. I have not received any comments re alternative text.
On the way forward/final proposal:
I agree that we shouldn’t try to design the future solution on .int administration in the final CWG proposal - from the discussion online we couldn’t do it even if we tried - there is obviously too much to debate even in initial discussions on legitimate interest, relevant stakeholders, inclusive process for the making of a proposal and so - and the CWG is not in a position to decide on these issues. So I would like to repeat earlier GAC member/participant input on .int. case, and suggest that we say something like this:
CWG has considered the .int domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA we don’t seeany need for changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders post transition.
Kind regards
Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative Networks Department Norwegian Communications Authority e-mail: ekl@nkom.no Mobile: +47 90190947
_______________________________________________ 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
Elise, Thanks for clarifying where you stand on this. proposal and so - and the CWG is not in a position to decide on these issues. So I would like to repeat earlier GAC member/participant input on .int. case, and suggest that we say something like this: CWG has considered the .int domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA we don't see any need for changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders post transition. I don't mind this kind of deferral as long as there is some engagement in this group with the proposition that IANA should not be operating a TLD. Could we add to this proposed statement something like this: "CWG notes that in ICANN's founding documents the operation of a TLD registry was not considered to be one of the "coordinated functions" to be provided by the IANA functions operator." I would also like to amend your last sentence by changing "post transition" to "immediately after the implementation of the IANA stewardship ransition." This will make it clear that we are talking not about the entire CCWG set of reforms, and that we are eager to see this change happen as soon as possible rather than pushing it indefinitely into the future. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
Milton, It might be okay to start the review process immediately after transition but I think it would be a good to allow 6 months or so after the transition before making any additional changes. In other words, I don't think saying 'immediately after transition' is a good way to word it. The general approach though seems fine to me. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 12:44 PM To: 'Lindeberg, Elise'; 'lisefuhrforwader'; 'Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> (jrobinson@afilias.info)'; 'Wanawit Ahkuputra (wanawit@etda.or.th)' Cc: 'cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain Elise, Thanks for clarifying where you stand on this. proposal and so - and the CWG is not in a position to decide on these issues. So I would like to repeat earlier GAC member/participant input on .int. case, and suggest that we say something like this: CWG has considered the .int domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA we don't see any need for changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders post transition. I don't mind this kind of deferral as long as there is some engagement in this group with the proposition that IANA should not be operating a TLD. Could we add to this proposed statement something like this: "CWG notes that in ICANN's founding documents the operation of a TLD registry was not considered to be one of the "coordinated functions" to be provided by the IANA functions operator." I would also like to amend your last sentence by changing "post transition" to "immediately after the implementation of the IANA stewardship ransition." This will make it clear that we are talking not about the entire CCWG set of reforms, and that we are eager to see this change happen as soon as possible rather than pushing it indefinitely into the future. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
I agree with you Chuck but the full sentence would say that the _review_ would begin immediately after the transition, not that anything would change immediately after. It would read like this: Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders immediately after the implementation of the IANA stewardship transition. Now, when has this community completed a review of anything in less than 6 months, especially when GAC is involved? By the way, I think we should also try to make Greg happy and remove the words "from relevant stakeholders" It might be okay to start the review process immediately after transition but I think it would be a good to allow 6 months or so after the transition before making any additional changes. In other words, I don't think saying 'immediately after transition' is a good way to word it. The general approach though seems fine to me. Chuck
Hi, Seems like a good formulation. avri On 22-May-15 19:53, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders immediately after the implementation of the IANA stewardship transition.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
I'm not convinced that it is: the term "immediately" seems to me to be a bit amiss. By all means let's defer this to a discussion post implementation, but I think it would be for the GAC to chose how soon after transition (resources and prioritisation are for them) it would wish to carry this out. In addition, though, we seem to be making two fundamental "policy" assumptions that I think could be seen as having very wide implications. 1. We are proposing the redelegation of a (narrow remit - one could see it as a community-type) gTLD. What are the rules for doing this for community gTLDs? Are we following them? 2. We seem to be arguing that ICANN should not run a TLD, although the bylaws do not actually appear to apply in this case (no anti-competitive element). As policy makers for gTLDs, should ICANN have a role in running one of the "regulated" entities? I'm not sure that really applies here - it is one of the reasons for PTI to separate the IANA operational element from the policy side. The argument could be that those operating the elements of the infrastructure should not also be a customer of the infrastructure, in which case does this happen for other key DNS infrastructure operators? Before the review, don't we need to think about the justification for the review? That assessment process could start immediately after the transition in a process that probably belongs in the GNSO but with the ccNSO, the root server operators and the root-zone maintainer having very clear interests. MB -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 23 May 2015 05:59 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain Hi, Seems like a good formulation. avri On 22-May-15 19:53, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders immediately after the implementation of the IANA stewardship transition.
--- 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
Would a cross community WG be more appropriate than a GNSO WG? It seems so to me. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 5:13 AM To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain I'm not convinced that it is: the term "immediately" seems to me to be a bit amiss. By all means let's defer this to a discussion post implementation, but I think it would be for the GAC to chose how soon after transition (resources and prioritisation are for them) it would wish to carry this out. In addition, though, we seem to be making two fundamental "policy" assumptions that I think could be seen as having very wide implications. 1. We are proposing the redelegation of a (narrow remit - one could see it as a community-type) gTLD. What are the rules for doing this for community gTLDs? Are we following them? 2. We seem to be arguing that ICANN should not run a TLD, although the bylaws do not actually appear to apply in this case (no anti-competitive element). As policy makers for gTLDs, should ICANN have a role in running one of the "regulated" entities? I'm not sure that really applies here - it is one of the reasons for PTI to separate the IANA operational element from the policy side. The argument could be that those operating the elements of the infrastructure should not also be a customer of the infrastructure, in which case does this happen for other key DNS infrastructure operators? Before the review, don't we need to think about the justification for the review? That assessment process could start immediately after the transition in a process that probably belongs in the GNSO but with the ccNSO, the root server operators and the root-zone maintainer having very clear interests. MB -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 23 May 2015 05:59 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain Hi, Seems like a good formulation. avri On 22-May-15 19:53, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders immediately after the implementation of the IANA stewardship transition.
--- 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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, Seems that way to me as well. avri On 26-May-15 10:31, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Would a cross community WG be more appropriate than a GNSO WG? It seems so to me.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 5:13 AM To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain
I'm not convinced that it is: the term "immediately" seems to me to be a bit amiss.
By all means let's defer this to a discussion post implementation, but I think it would be for the GAC to chose how soon after transition (resources and prioritisation are for them) it would wish to carry this out.
In addition, though, we seem to be making two fundamental "policy" assumptions that I think could be seen as having very wide implications.
1. We are proposing the redelegation of a (narrow remit - one could see it as a community-type) gTLD. What are the rules for doing this for community gTLDs? Are we following them?
2. We seem to be arguing that ICANN should not run a TLD, although the bylaws do not actually appear to apply in this case (no anti-competitive element). As policy makers for gTLDs, should ICANN have a role in running one of the "regulated" entities? I'm not sure that really applies here - it is one of the reasons for PTI to separate the IANA operational element from the policy side. The argument could be that those operating the elements of the infrastructure should not also be a customer of the infrastructure, in which case does this happen for other key DNS infrastructure operators?
Before the review, don't we need to think about the justification for the review? That assessment process could start immediately after the transition in a process that probably belongs in the GNSO but with the ccNSO, the root server operators and the root-zone maintainer having very clear interests.
MB
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 23 May 2015 05:59 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain
Hi,
Seems like a good formulation.
avri
On 22-May-15 19:53, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders immediately after the implementation of the IANA stewardship transition.
--- 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 _______________________________________________ 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
That might be appropriate, Chuck, but at this stage isn't it just assessing what existing policy might be implicated/at stake? Given the nature of .int, the real assessment has to be in the GAC, but that needs to be done in the light of what policy already exist and what might be impacted. I'm not sure I'd want unintentional (or at least unexplained) over-turning of policy. Just at the moment I fear that we are (re)writing policy on the fly and that worries me. Setting rules for a tightly defined TLD like .int could certainly have implications for some gTLDs and I can just imagine the possible attempts to scope creep to ccTLDs. Martin -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 26 May 2015 16:31 To: Martin Boyle; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain Would a cross community WG be more appropriate than a GNSO WG? It seems so to me. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 5:13 AM To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain I'm not convinced that it is: the term "immediately" seems to me to be a bit amiss. By all means let's defer this to a discussion post implementation, but I think it would be for the GAC to chose how soon after transition (resources and prioritisation are for them) it would wish to carry this out. In addition, though, we seem to be making two fundamental "policy" assumptions that I think could be seen as having very wide implications. 1. We are proposing the redelegation of a (narrow remit - one could see it as a community-type) gTLD. What are the rules for doing this for community gTLDs? Are we following them? 2. We seem to be arguing that ICANN should not run a TLD, although the bylaws do not actually appear to apply in this case (no anti-competitive element). As policy makers for gTLDs, should ICANN have a role in running one of the "regulated" entities? I'm not sure that really applies here - it is one of the reasons for PTI to separate the IANA operational element from the policy side. The argument could be that those operating the elements of the infrastructure should not also be a customer of the infrastructure, in which case does this happen for other key DNS infrastructure operators? Before the review, don't we need to think about the justification for the review? That assessment process could start immediately after the transition in a process that probably belongs in the GNSO but with the ccNSO, the root server operators and the root-zone maintainer having very clear interests. MB -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 23 May 2015 05:59 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain Hi, Seems like a good formulation. avri On 22-May-15 19:53, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders immediately after the implementation of the IANA stewardship transition.
--- 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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Martin, I also oppose writing policy on the fly. My main point is that when policy is developed for .int it will be a community issue not just the GNSO. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 12:29 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain That might be appropriate, Chuck, but at this stage isn't it just assessing what existing policy might be implicated/at stake? Given the nature of .int, the real assessment has to be in the GAC, but that needs to be done in the light of what policy already exist and what might be impacted. I'm not sure I'd want unintentional (or at least unexplained) over-turning of policy. Just at the moment I fear that we are (re)writing policy on the fly and that worries me. Setting rules for a tightly defined TLD like .int could certainly have implications for some gTLDs and I can just imagine the possible attempts to scope creep to ccTLDs. Martin -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 26 May 2015 16:31 To: Martin Boyle; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain Would a cross community WG be more appropriate than a GNSO WG? It seems so to me. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 5:13 AM To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain I'm not convinced that it is: the term "immediately" seems to me to be a bit amiss. By all means let's defer this to a discussion post implementation, but I think it would be for the GAC to chose how soon after transition (resources and prioritisation are for them) it would wish to carry this out. In addition, though, we seem to be making two fundamental "policy" assumptions that I think could be seen as having very wide implications. 1. We are proposing the redelegation of a (narrow remit - one could see it as a community-type) gTLD. What are the rules for doing this for community gTLDs? Are we following them? 2. We seem to be arguing that ICANN should not run a TLD, although the bylaws do not actually appear to apply in this case (no anti-competitive element). As policy makers for gTLDs, should ICANN have a role in running one of the "regulated" entities? I'm not sure that really applies here - it is one of the reasons for PTI to separate the IANA operational element from the policy side. The argument could be that those operating the elements of the infrastructure should not also be a customer of the infrastructure, in which case does this happen for other key DNS infrastructure operators? Before the review, don't we need to think about the justification for the review? That assessment process could start immediately after the transition in a process that probably belongs in the GNSO but with the ccNSO, the root server operators and the root-zone maintainer having very clear interests. MB -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 23 May 2015 05:59 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain Hi, Seems like a good formulation. avri On 22-May-15 19:53, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders immediately after the implementation of the IANA stewardship transition.
--- 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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-----Original Message----- By all means let's defer this to a discussion post implementation, but I think it would be for the GAC to chose how soon after transition (resources and prioritisation are for them) it would wish to carry this out.
I don't understand why this is a matter for GAC discretion rather than CWG decision. Please explain.
2. We seem to be arguing that ICANN should not run a TLD, although the bylaws do not actually appear to apply in this case (no anti- competitive element).
Your assumption that there is no competitive element is arguable. .INT is a gTLD that fits into the mold of a sponsored gTLD and might be considered a resource by any number of potential registries or cooperative set of registrants. There is no reason for IANA to be running it, especially post-transition.
As policy makers for gTLDs, should ICANN have a role in running one of the "regulated" entities? I'm not sure that really applies here - it is one of the reasons for PTI to separate the IANA operational element from the policy side.
Any entity that runs a TLD is by definition a policy maker for the community that uses the TLD. Let's have IANA stick to its knitting. Martin, while you are coming up with somewhat plausible rationalizations for not doing anything, you are not providing any positive reasons why we SHOULD leave things as they are. Is there some stronger reason you are not telling us about why you are resisting this? --MM
I think Milton is right on this. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:44 AM To: 'Martin Boyle'; 'avri@acm.org'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain
-----Original Message----- By all means let's defer this to a discussion post implementation, but I think it would be for the GAC to chose how soon after transition (resources and prioritisation are for them) it would wish to carry this out.
I don't understand why this is a matter for GAC discretion rather than CWG decision. Please explain.
2. We seem to be arguing that ICANN should not run a TLD, although the bylaws do not actually appear to apply in this case (no anti- competitive element).
Your assumption that there is no competitive element is arguable. .INT is a gTLD that fits into the mold of a sponsored gTLD and might be considered a resource by any number of potential registries or cooperative set of registrants. There is no reason for IANA to be running it, especially post-transition.
As policy makers for gTLDs, should ICANN have a role in running one of the "regulated" entities? I'm not sure that really applies here - it is one of the reasons for PTI to separate the IANA operational element from the policy side.
Any entity that runs a TLD is by definition a policy maker for the community that uses the TLD. Let's have IANA stick to its knitting. Martin, while you are coming up with somewhat plausible rationalizations for not doing anything, you are not providing any positive reasons why we SHOULD leave things as they are. Is there some stronger reason you are not telling us about why you are resisting this? --MM _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Good afternoon: I think Martin and Elise are right about this. regards CW PS: BTW, what was the ICANN/GNSO response to: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-et-al-... - ? On 27 May 2015, at 15:54, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I think Milton is right on this.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:44 AM To: 'Martin Boyle'; 'avri@acm.org'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain
-----Original Message----- By all means let's defer this to a discussion post implementation, but I think it would be for the GAC to chose how soon after transition (resources and prioritisation are for them) it would wish to carry this out.
I don't understand why this is a matter for GAC discretion rather than CWG decision. Please explain.
2. We seem to be arguing that ICANN should not run a TLD, although the bylaws do not actually appear to apply in this case (no anti- competitive element).
Your assumption that there is no competitive element is arguable. .INT is a gTLD that fits into the mold of a sponsored gTLD and might be considered a resource by any number of potential registries or cooperative set of registrants. There is no reason for IANA to be running it, especially post-transition.
As policy makers for gTLDs, should ICANN have a role in running one of the "regulated" entities? I'm not sure that really applies here - it is one of the reasons for PTI to separate the IANA operational element from the policy side.
Any entity that runs a TLD is by definition a policy maker for the community that uses the TLD. Let's have IANA stick to its knitting.
Martin, while you are coming up with somewhat plausible rationalizations for not doing anything, you are not providing any positive reasons why we SHOULD leave things as they are. Is there some stronger reason you are not telling us about why you are resisting this?
--MM
_______________________________________________ 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
Milton, 1. I do not think it is for the CWG to tell the GAC how to prioritise. If GAC sees a TLD for Inter-governmental organisations as more or less of a priority than the myriad of other decisions that ICANN is thrusting its way, so be it. 2. There is only one TLD solely focussed on inter-governmental organisations. Others might offer, but are you really saying that .int is a gTLD, because if so I'd like to see GNSO policy relating to redelegations of existing gTLDs and of the clear reasons as behind removing the delegation from ICANN without due process. For the moment, I really think that the line you are using is tenuous. If I'm wrong, then we need to think more widely about the right to run a gTLD by any organisation involved in the DNS infrastructure. 3. It does depend on who sets the policy and when that was set. I think we need GAC to tell us whether there is a better solution. Remember this is a gTLD serving inter-governmental organisation *only* so I do not see why the decision on operators involves other organisations other than interested parties - the members of the IGOs. Any more than I would expect the Catholic Church to have a significant say over the policies for .gay. 4. "... somewhat plausible rationalizations for not doing anything, you are not providing any positive reasons why we SHOULD leave things as they are. Is there some stronger reason you are not telling us about why you are resisting this?" I love the condescending tone you adopt to anyone who sees things differently to you, Milton. Yes, I have a strong aversion to policy on the fly just because it sounds plausible. Sorry, that's just the way I feel. Blame it on to many years working in the UK government - old habits die hard. Hope this helps Martin -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: 27 May 2015 15:44 To: Martin Boyle; 'avri@acm.org'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain
-----Original Message----- By all means let's defer this to a discussion post implementation, but I think it would be for the GAC to chose how soon after transition (resources and prioritisation are for them) it would wish to carry this out.
I don't understand why this is a matter for GAC discretion rather than CWG decision. Please explain.
2. We seem to be arguing that ICANN should not run a TLD, although the bylaws do not actually appear to apply in this case (no anti- competitive element).
Your assumption that there is no competitive element is arguable. .INT is a gTLD that fits into the mold of a sponsored gTLD and might be considered a resource by any number of potential registries or cooperative set of registrants. There is no reason for IANA to be running it, especially post-transition.
As policy makers for gTLDs, should ICANN have a role in running one of the "regulated" entities? I'm not sure that really applies here - it is one of the reasons for PTI to separate the IANA operational element from the policy side.
Any entity that runs a TLD is by definition a policy maker for the community that uses the TLD. Let's have IANA stick to its knitting. Martin, while you are coming up with somewhat plausible rationalizations for not doing anything, you are not providing any positive reasons why we SHOULD leave things as they are. Is there some stronger reason you are not telling us about why you are resisting this? --MM
-----Original Message----- From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk]
1. I do not think it is for the CWG to tell the GAC how to prioritise. If GAC sees a TLD for Inter-governmental organisations as more or less of a priority than the myriad of other decisions that ICANN is thrusting its way, so be it.
Martin: you wrote the above in response to my question: "I don't understand why this is a matter for GAC discretion rather than CWG decision. Please explain." It is obvious that you have not answered that question. Your answer merely presumes that it is GAC that sets the priorities. Please tell us _why_ it should be GAC's decision, and when and how we decided it would be. I recall the formation of a design team that had someone from GAC on it. I do not recall a decision by CWG to outsource the problem to GAC. I could be wrong, though, so perhaps the chairs can answer this.
2. There is only one TLD solely focussed on inter-governmental organisations. Others might offer, but are you really saying that .int is a gTLD, because if so I'd like to see GNSO policy relating to redelegations of existing gTLDs and of the clear reasons as behind removing the delegation from ICANN without due process. For the moment, I really think that the line you are using is tenuous. If I'm wrong, then we need to think more widely about the right to run a gTLD by any organisation involved in the DNS infrastructure.
As noted in my prior response to Elise, your idea that ICANN's IANA department was a gTLD contractor that received INT through an established community policy process is known to be false. By removing IANA from this role, we are simply ending an anomalous and undesirable situation related to the IANA transition. This has no implications for the right of "any organization" to run a TLD. It is about getting the root zone file editor out of the business of registry operation.
*only* so I do not see why the decision on operators involves other organisations other than interested parties - the members of the IGOs. Any more than I would expect the Catholic Church to have a significant say over the policies for .gay.
The GAC represents mostly national governments; IGOs are a relatively small part of its membership. Numerous people on this list, including Bill Manning, Avri and myself, have expressed strong support for consulting with the actual registrants of .INT, and it seems to be Elisa and you who are resisting this line of inquiry. Please tell me how your concept of "GAC discretion" would facilitate a voice for the actual registrants of INT? Is GAC even being asked to consult them as part of our plan?
I love the condescending tone you adopt to anyone who sees things differently to you, Milton. Yes, I have a strong aversion to policy on the fly just because it sounds plausible. Sorry, that's just the way I feel. Blame it on to many years working in the UK government - old habits die hard.
I think it's clear from anyone reading this thread who is unable to relate to someone who sees things differently, and who is resorting to personal attacks as a result. I have simply asked you for better justifications for your positions. The odd thing about your response is that it is you who are offering us "policy on the fly" - you seem to have mentally delegated this to GAC and are willing to leave it to its discretion without any guidance from the group (CWG) that is explicitly authorized to develop a plan for the transition, a plan we have been told repeatedly must include .INT. I am not the only one questioning this. --MM
Hi,
Any entity that runs a TLD is by definition a policy maker for the community that uses the TLD.
This is not accurate -- it ignores the outsourced operation of TLDs. In the case of .INT, ICANN, as the IANA Function Operator, can be seen as being the organization to which the operation of .INT was outsourced. In the post-transition world, it would probably make sense that this outsourcing arrangement be revised. I don't see a particular rush to do so now -- it would seem to me to be a minor thing to address once things settle down. Regards, -drc
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 04:14:20PM +0000, David Conrad wrote:
In the case of .INT, ICANN, as the IANA Function Operator, can be seen as being the organization to which the operation of .INT was outsourced.
I think this is exactly right. If you look at the actual NTIA ICANN agreement, it's the technical operations of INT that are named, not the whole ball of wax. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
All, - so the use of the term "relevant stakeholders" was an attempt not to rule our anyone at this stage in the "to be started and decided later" process in the Multistakeholder Community. My mistake to think this was a good solution... - so I'm fine with the suggestion to remove "relevant stakeholders" . Elise Fra: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sendt: 22. mai 2015 19:53 Til: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Lindeberg, Elise Kopi: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Emne: RE: Fate of the .INT domain I agree with you Chuck but the full sentence would say that the _review_ would begin immediately after the transition, not that anything would change immediately after. It would read like this: Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders immediately after the implementation of the IANA stewardship transition. Now, when has this community completed a review of anything in less than 6 months, especially when GAC is involved? By the way, I think we should also try to make Greg happy and remove the words "from relevant stakeholders" It might be okay to start the review process immediately after transition but I think it would be a good to allow 6 months or so after the transition before making any additional changes. In other words, I don't think saying 'immediately after transition' is a good way to word it. The general approach though seems fine to me. Chuck
participants (10)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Avri Doria -
CW Lists -
David Conrad -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Lindeberg, Elise -
manning -
Martin Boyle -
Milton L Mueller