On 16/05/2015 14:09, Milton L Mueller wrote:

But is changing it REALLY on our critical path?

M: Well, yes. Early in this process I heard NTIA staff complain several times that no one was proposing what to do with .INT and since .INT is currently part of the IANA functions contract any transition plan has to deal with it. I agree that _/who/_ gets .INT is not a critical part of the transition but we could easily say as part of our proposal: “.INT should be redelegated to an appropriate registry operator and the IFO should not be running a TLD unless it it something that directly touches on the IANA functions (such as .arpa).”

.INT is a can of worms. I really think it would be unwise to open it now, at the 11th hour, as an afterthought, a few days before the end of the 2nd public consultation. I am of the view that if it ain't broke, don't attempt to fix it. I definitely to not see a link between it and the transition of stewardship itself. Kind regards, Olivier

I don't agree with either of you and don't find your arguments convincing at all. It's actually very simple to propose, as part of the transition, that this activity be discontinued. The actual transfer or redelegation can occur later, I agree that it is not required to happen during the stewardship transition. But we do need to have a position on what to do with it. It _is_ "broken" to have the root zone file editor running a TLD, especially one that connects it to intergovernmental organizations. Avoidance is not a wise approach to this issue

-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 9:56 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

...

On May 17, 2015, at 1:04 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: .INT is a can of worms. I really think it would be unwise to open it now, at the 11th hour, as an afterthought, a few days before the end of the 2nd public consultation. I am of the view that if it ain't broke, don't attempt to fix it. I definitely to not see a link between it and the transition of stewardship itself.

I agree. Even if there were some issue with .INT management, that's completely orthogonal to the process at hand. Please let's not find new problems to solve before the big one is dealt with.

-Bill

On May 17, 2015, at 19:19, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

...

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 04:20:57PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote: It _is_ "broken" to have the root zone file editor running a TLD, especially one that connects it to intergovernmental organizations.

Why? That is the state of affairs prior to transition. Why is it a bad thing afterwards?

Because it was an equally bad thing before, but equally not in need of urgent fixing? -Bill

I care. That's the kind of thing we should do - at least propose to ask them and initiate a process to change it if they want to.

-----Original Message-----

Hi,

Do we have any idea of what the .int 2nd level registrants want? Do we care?

avri

Bearing in mind the discussions over the years on the operation of .int, identifying a specific date for divesting seems to me to be arbitrary. As Keith notes, it doesn't look as if there's any current demand, so the process is pretty uncertain, too. Hence I think that identifying a process or a forum for moving forward, rather than plucking figures out of the air, would be a better approach. Leaving it to the GAC to assess and make recommendations on next steps would seem to me to be entirely appropriate in this case: it would be for the GAC to define its own timetable and processes. MB -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Keith Davidson Sent: 18 May 2015 23:02 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain Surely we could recommend that ICANN divest itself of .int within a x year period after the transition? I seem to recall there was a strong interest from the ITU in taking over .int at some point in the past, but has not re-emerged in anything I have seen for several years. I thought it might have been formally proposed by ITU during the NOI and FNOI stages of the NTIA / IANA renewal process. ITU made submissions, but the submissions did not refer to .int iirc. Cheers Keith On 18/05/2015 10:10 a.m., Milton L Mueller wrote:

I care. That's the kind of thing we should do - at least propose to ask them and initiate a process to change it if they want to.

...

-----Original Message-----

Hi,

Do we have any idea of what the .int 2nd level registrants want? Do we care?

avri

_______________________________________________ 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

Yes, Andrew to your credit you've been consistent about this. But I have also been consistent in advocating that we fix whatever needs fixing during this process. ;-) --MM

-----Original Message-----

Right, that's my point. There is nothing wrong with a transition plan that says of int, "Status quo ante, nothing to see here." Which is I think what is being suggested. That doesn't mean I think it should never be changed, but I don't see why it needs to be linked to this, any more than I think SLA changes or other not strictly relevant operational adjustments ought to be included.

Milton, I do appreciate the leadership role you are playing, but I note (from https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams+List): Design Team H: .INT Operations Lead: Elise Lindeberg Status: Not Needed/Covered Elsewhere Note: Priority 2 – Chairs understand that this issue is being dealt with by the GAC. Alan At 17/05/2015 06:12 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

Yes, Andrew to your credit you've been consistent about this. But I have also been consistent in advocating that we fix whatever needs fixing during this process. ;-)

--MM

...

-----Original Message-----

Right, that's my point. There is nothing wrong with a transition plan that says of int, "Status quo ante, nothing to see here." Which is I think what is being suggested. That doesn't mean I think it should never be changed, but I don't see why it needs to be linked to this, any more than I think SLA changes or other not strictly relevant operational adjustments ought to be included.

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

I endorsed the idea, too. As best I can tell, the issue has been more or less swept under the rug by the statement "leave it to the GAC." I have no objection in principle to affording GAC a major role in developing a recommendation for .INT, but I think the CWG as a whole should not be just "leaving it" to them; we have the responsibility to develop some guidelines as to how they should deal with it - e.g., do they actually ask the registrants what they want? Do we instruct them that IANA FO should not be running a TLD registry? Do they develop a recommendation and bring it back to the CWG? On what timetable? --MM

-----Original Message-----

I remember this and remember endorsing the idea at the time. There might have been others who also endorsed the idea at that time.

I do not see how we can avoid doing this.

Perhaps doing this can be something that comes post transition if it can be guaranteed in some way. but I believe we really need to take it into account. We can establish a process by which ti would be done immediately following transition, including the consultation with the registrants, the creation of a proposal, a community review and a decision.

We have been reminded several times in several ways by NTIA that we could not just not deal with the .int issue.

avri

On 21-May-15 07:20, manning wrote:

...

it did indeed come up on the list at least i know i brought it up. discussion never happened in the DT, a summary judgement was issued and adopted.

the proposal was/is to ASK those entities in the .INT space what they would like, going forward. Would this group be hostile to such an effort?

manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102

On 15May2015Friday, at 1:36, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

...

Speaking of .INT, I am very surprised that there has been no discussion of IANA divesting .INT and putting it in someone else's hands. While this is not a particularly urgent issue for the transition, it seems obvious to me that IANA, as the root zone file administrator, should not be in the business of running a TLD registry for international intergovernmental organizations. Why has this issue not surfaced?

--MM

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 4:09 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

You are correct Greg. Donna set me straight. It would help if I read all of the DT-C notes.

Chuck

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: CW Lists; Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

Chuck,

I'm not too sure about that. The punch list, asks the question "Composition: who will select the TLD representative that is not a ccTLD or gTLD registry?" so it seems to refer to a single representative, and one that is not a ccTLD or gTLD (regardless of membership in any ICANN structure). The punch list further refers to Annex G, page 59. Page 59 has the following list of proposed Registry members of the CSC:

* 2 x gTLD registry operators * 2 x ccTLD registry operators * 1 additional TLD representative not considered a ccTLD or gTLD registry operator such as the IAB for .ARPA could also be included in the minimum requirements but is not mandatory

Based on these data points, it appears that DT C is discussing the third bullet point, which gives .ARPA as an example. (The third bulletpoint also notes this "seat" is not "mandatory.") Therefore, it does look like the reference is to that very limited universe cited by Christopher Wilkinson: .ARPA (IANA/IAB), .INT (IANA), .MIL (US Dept of Defense), .EDU (US Dept of Commerce/Dept of Education/Educause), .GOV (US General Services Admin). (There are other "sTLDs" but these now seem to be considered gTLDs for all intents and purposes, such as .mobi, .travel, .xxx, etc.)

I don't see the harm in having a seat for these 5 (really 4, since as Martin notes, it would be odd to have the .INT operator (IANA) in the CSC) registries, since as Martin also notes, they do not otherwise have a direct voice or a natural channel through the GNSO or ccNSO.

Greg

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Christopher,

I am not on DT-C so I cannot speak for them, but my understanding is that they were talking about TLD registries that are not members of the ccNSO or RySG. Regardless, I think you raise an important issue that should be considered.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of CW Lists Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:50 PM To: Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

Dear Donna, Dear Friends and Colleagues:

With reference to the DT-C notes on the 'Punch List', attached, for which I thank you, allow me a short comment on Point 11: CSC Composition.

The concept of a TLD that is not a ccTLD or a gTLD is rather obscure. Many would consider that there are none such. However, internal evidence suggests that CWG considers that there are some.

In which case, to the best of my knowledge, the only candidates are .int, .gov, .edu and .mil. or .arpa, thus the DT-C comments under point 11, would appear to be a rather odd circumlocution, if the intention is to ensure that the USG-based TLDs, or the ICANN-based TLDs, would somehow have an 'extra' seat on the CSC.

I drew this question to your attention in my mail, below, of 26 February, but did not receive a reply. Having reviewed in some detail the most recent version of the CWG transition proposal, I still find no reference to the above TLDs (with the exception of .int)

Indeed, if it is the CWG position that these TLDs should be somehow 'grandfathered' outside the IANA transition, then may I suggest that it behoves someone - not excluding NTIA - to say so clearly, now. Otherwise there will be a lingering misunderstanding that would sit uncomfortably with the underlying proposition that the IANA transition is to the global multistakeholder Internet community.

Regards

CW

Begin forwarded message:

From: CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Proposal Version 2.0 Date: 26 Feb 2015 13:50:44 GMT+01:00 To: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>

Jonathan, Lise:

Thankyou for another draft magnum opus. As you say there are several aspects to be completed in greater detail.

Meanwhile, may I point out that under: I. The Community's Use of the IANA

- and indeed in the whole document, there is no reference to the TLDs: .gov, .mil, .edu and .arpa. These are not gTLDs, as the reference to .int confirms. For the sake of completeness, it would not be appropriate to ignore them.

I am quite troubled by one question here, and beyond its application to the .INT question: "For so specialised a TLD, is this really something for wide community decision - stakeholders who are not stakeholders (or interested parties) in this decision?" The idea that stakeholders must be "stakeholders (or interested parties" in a particular decision in order to participate in a process really stands the multistakeholder model on its head. If we exclude certain sectors of stakeholders from a process, it really cannot be called multistakeholder any longer (and as Avri pointed out on a recent call, even an imbalanced multistakeholder group deviates from the multistakeholder model and may not be truly multistakeholder). I think we need to proceed with extreme caution whenever there is a suggestion that certain stakeholder groups do not hold a sufficient "stake" or are not competent or qualified to participate in a particular issue or process or group. By definition, the multistakeholder model involves stakeholders coming from diverse backgrounds, skillsets and concerns. This cannot be denied without compromising the legitimacy of a "multistakeholder" process or group. The idea that being an "interested party" should be a qualification for participating in a decision causes even greater concern. If anything, this could be deemed a disqualification, since a party with an interest in the outcome will tend to seek an outcome beneficial to that interest, not the community's interest or the public interest. For a variety of reasons, we do not operate that way -- being an interested party does not qualify one from participating in a multistakeholder process relating to that interest. This makes it even more important that a truly inclusive multistakeholder group be assembled to consider and resolve issues regardless of whose ox is being gored, to balance the self-interest of the interested parties and to assure the integrity of the process. Greg On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:

I'm ok with a post-transition process. I'm less ok with us plucking processes out of the air...

We need to think about who asks what of whom. And once we have the input, we also need to think about who makes the decision. But is that a general discussion or just for the GAC to devise and report back on its decision? And reporting back could be based on when they agree to a collective decision - I'm not ok with telling the GAC that it needs to do something by a particular date and in a particular manner.

Asking registrants about what will essentially be a redelegation process is not really an existing criterion for a gTLD, is it? (It could be an interesting way of doing it, but I'm not sure that it is without its problems.) And will the registrant necessarily be the person authorised to give a view in the organisation?

For so specialised a TLD, is this really something for wide community decision - stakeholders who are not stakeholders (or interested parties) in this decision?

Finally, have we agreed that the IANA functions operator should not be running a TLD registry? If so, I must have missed that discussion/decision. Bearing in mind that they have been providing the role for a number of years, this seems to me to be a decision that should be clearly justified.

Martin

-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: 21 May 2015 16:32 To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

I endorsed the idea, too.

As best I can tell, the issue has been more or less swept under the rug by the statement "leave it to the GAC." I have no objection in principle to affording GAC a major role in developing a recommendation for .INT, but I think the CWG as a whole should not be just "leaving it" to them; we have the responsibility to develop some guidelines as to how they should deal with it - e.g., do they actually ask the registrants what they want? Do we instruct them that IANA FO should not be running a TLD registry? Do they develop a recommendation and bring it back to the CWG? On what timetable?

--MM

...

-----Original Message-----

I remember this and remember endorsing the idea at the time. There might have been others who also endorsed the idea at that time.

I do not see how we can avoid doing this.

Perhaps doing this can be something that comes post transition if it can be guaranteed in some way. but I believe we really need to take it into account. We can establish a process by which ti would be done immediately following transition, including the consultation with the registrants, the creation of a proposal, a community review and a decision.

We have been reminded several times in several ways by NTIA that we could not just not deal with the .int issue.

avri

On 21-May-15 07:20, manning wrote:

...

it did indeed come up on the list at least i know i brought it up. discussion never happened in the DT, a summary judgement was issued and adopted.

the proposal was/is to ASK those entities in the .INT space what they would like, going forward. Would this group be hostile to such an effort?

manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102

On 15May2015Friday, at 1:36, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

...

Speaking of .INT, I am very surprised that there has been no discussion of IANA divesting .INT and putting it in someone else's hands. While this is not a particularly urgent issue for the transition, it seems obvious to me that IANA, as the root zone file administrator, should not be in the business of running a TLD registry for international intergovernmental organizations. Why has this issue not surfaced?

--MM

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 4:09 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

You are correct Greg. Donna set me straight. It would help if I read all of the DT-C notes.

Chuck

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: CW Lists; Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

Chuck,

I'm not too sure about that. The punch list, asks the question "Composition: who will select the TLD representative that is not a ccTLD or gTLD registry?" so it seems to refer to a single representative, and one that is not a ccTLD or gTLD (regardless of membership in any ICANN structure). The punch list further refers to Annex G, page 59. Page 59 has the following list of proposed Registry members of the CSC:

* 2 x gTLD registry operators * 2 x ccTLD registry operators * 1 additional TLD representative not considered a ccTLD or gTLD registry operator such as the IAB for .ARPA could also be included in the minimum requirements but is not mandatory

Based on these data points, it appears that DT C is discussing the third bullet point, which gives .ARPA as an example. (The third bulletpoint also notes this "seat" is not "mandatory.") Therefore, it does look like the reference is to that very limited universe cited by Christopher Wilkinson: .ARPA (IANA/IAB), .INT (IANA), .MIL (US Dept of Defense), .EDU (US Dept of Commerce/Dept of Education/Educause), .GOV (US General Services Admin). (There are other "sTLDs" but these now seem to be considered gTLDs for all intents and purposes, such as .mobi, .travel, .xxx, etc.)

I don't see the harm in having a seat for these 5 (really 4, since as Martin notes, it would be odd to have the .INT operator (IANA) in the CSC) registries, since as Martin also notes, they do not otherwise have a direct voice or a natural channel through the GNSO or ccNSO.

Greg

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Christopher,

I am not on DT-C so I cannot speak for them, but my understanding is that they were talking about TLD registries that are not members of the ccNSO or RySG. Regardless, I think you raise an important issue that should be considered.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of CW Lists Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:50 PM To: Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

Dear Donna, Dear Friends and Colleagues:

With reference to the DT-C notes on the 'Punch List', attached, for which I thank you, allow me a short comment on Point 11: CSC Composition.

The concept of a TLD that is not a ccTLD or a gTLD is rather obscure. Many would consider that there are none such. However, internal evidence suggests that CWG considers that there are some.

In which case, to the best of my knowledge, the only candidates are .int, .gov, .edu and .mil. or .arpa, thus the DT-C comments under point 11, would appear to be a rather odd circumlocution, if the intention is to ensure that the USG-based TLDs, or the ICANN-based TLDs, would somehow have an 'extra' seat on the CSC.

I drew this question to your attention in my mail, below, of 26 February, but did not receive a reply. Having reviewed in some detail the most recent version of the CWG transition proposal, I still find no reference to the above TLDs (with the exception of .int)

Indeed, if it is the CWG position that these TLDs should be somehow 'grandfathered' outside the IANA transition, then may I suggest that it behoves someone - not excluding NTIA - to say so clearly, now. Otherwise there will be a lingering misunderstanding that would sit uncomfortably with the underlying proposition that the IANA transition is to the global multistakeholder Internet community.

Regards

CW

Begin forwarded message:

From: CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Proposal Version 2.0 Date: 26 Feb 2015 13:50:44 GMT+01:00 To: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>

Jonathan, Lise:

Thankyou for another draft magnum opus. As you say there are several aspects to be completed in greater detail.

Meanwhile, may I point out that under: I. The Community's Use of the IANA

- and indeed in the whole document, there is no reference to the TLDs: .gov, .mil, .edu and .arpa. These are not gTLDs, as the reference to .int confirms. For the sake of completeness, it would not be appropriate to ignore them.

---

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

I am not particularly comfortable with the characterization of “multi-stakeholder” as presented. Not All stakeholders are equally vested in each aspect of the Interent, indeed multi suggests a wide variety of stake holders, each with their own interests/concerns… And we have empirical evidence to suggest that this is the case. Clearly the members of the ccNSO each claim the right to manage their delegation as they see fit, without having to modify their policies or operations based on some other ccTLD; e.g. Brazil (.BR) might be willing to listen to the users of the NBN in Australia, but are not required to adopt any such recommendations. The same idempotency was recently asserted for the .MIL, .GOV, and .EDU domains. Each stakeholder should have a voice, but not all voices are equal in each and every aspect. manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 21May2015Thursday, at 12:50, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Good evening:

I think that both Martin and Greg have put their fingers on a sensitive point.

1. Let us admit that all stakeholders have a potential role to play in such a matter. @Greg. Then (a) the actual participants in such an exercise will have to do a lot of homework before they can act credibly, especially if they are initially non-initiated, and (b) There will have to be a CoI clause in the relevant WG etc. to exclude very 'interested parties' in the sense of potential tenders for the Registry contract. (Should that prove to be commercially of any interest, which I doubt.)

2. Let us also suppose that CWG reaches a rapid consensus to the effect that 'ICANN should relegate .int to a third party'. But in such a case, the next thing that will happen is that GAC will propose to prepare Advice to the Board on such a delicate international question. @Martin. Which brings us back to where the DT started from. @ Elise.

3. Some of our contributors appear to overlook the history of this question. However, the background is now available in the archive. @ Olivier, among others.

So, I would not mind if CWG decides to tuck a small paragraph about this into the already over-long draft report. However, CWG is not mandated to organise re-delegations. Neither is IANA/PTI, since it is a policy question. Policy is separate from execution. Remember.

Just a few thoughts

CW

On 21 May 2015, at 21:07, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I am quite troubled by one question here, and beyond its application to the .INT question:

"For so specialised a TLD, is this really something for wide community decision - stakeholders who are not stakeholders (or interested parties) in this decision?"

The idea that stakeholders must be "stakeholders (or interested parties" in a particular decision in order to participate in a process really stands the multistakeholder model on its head. If we exclude certain sectors of stakeholders from a process, it really cannot be called multistakeholder any longer (and as Avri pointed out on a recent call, even an imbalanced multistakeholder group deviates from the multistakeholder model and may not be truly multistakeholder).

I think we need to proceed with extreme caution whenever there is a suggestion that certain stakeholder groups do not hold a sufficient "stake" or are not competent or qualified to participate in a particular issue or process or group. By definition, the multistakeholder model involves stakeholders coming from diverse backgrounds, skillsets and concerns. This cannot be denied without compromising the legitimacy of a "multistakeholder" process or group.

The idea that being an "interested party" should be a qualification for participating in a decision causes even greater concern. If anything, this could be deemed a disqualification, since a party with an interest in the outcome will tend to seek an outcome beneficial to that interest, not the community's interest or the public interest. For a variety of reasons, we do not operate that way -- being an interested party does not qualify one from participating in a multistakeholder process relating to that interest. This makes it even more important that a truly inclusive multistakeholder group be assembled to consider and resolve issues regardless of whose ox is being gored, to balance the self-interest of the interested parties and to assure the integrity of the process.

Greg

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote: I'm ok with a post-transition process. I'm less ok with us plucking processes out of the air...

We need to think about who asks what of whom. And once we have the input, we also need to think about who makes the decision. But is that a general discussion or just for the GAC to devise and report back on its decision? And reporting back could be based on when they agree to a collective decision - I'm not ok with telling the GAC that it needs to do something by a particular date and in a particular manner.

Asking registrants about what will essentially be a redelegation process is not really an existing criterion for a gTLD, is it? (It could be an interesting way of doing it, but I'm not sure that it is without its problems.) And will the registrant necessarily be the person authorised to give a view in the organisation?

For so specialised a TLD, is this really something for wide community decision - stakeholders who are not stakeholders (or interested parties) in this decision?

Finally, have we agreed that the IANA functions operator should not be running a TLD registry? If so, I must have missed that discussion/decision. Bearing in mind that they have been providing the role for a number of years, this seems to me to be a decision that should be clearly justified.

Martin

-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: 21 May 2015 16:32 To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

I endorsed the idea, too.

As best I can tell, the issue has been more or less swept under the rug by the statement "leave it to the GAC." I have no objection in principle to affording GAC a major role in developing a recommendation for .INT, but I think the CWG as a whole should not be just "leaving it" to them; we have the responsibility to develop some guidelines as to how they should deal with it - e.g., do they actually ask the registrants what they want? Do we instruct them that IANA FO should not be running a TLD registry? Do they develop a recommendation and bring it back to the CWG? On what timetable?

--MM

...

-----Original Message-----

I remember this and remember endorsing the idea at the time. There might have been others who also endorsed the idea at that time.

I do not see how we can avoid doing this.

Perhaps doing this can be something that comes post transition if it can be guaranteed in some way. but I believe we really need to take it into account. We can establish a process by which ti would be done immediately following transition, including the consultation with the registrants, the creation of a proposal, a community review and a decision.

We have been reminded several times in several ways by NTIA that we could not just not deal with the .int issue.

avri

On 21-May-15 07:20, manning wrote:

...

it did indeed come up on the list at least i know i brought it up. discussion never happened in the DT, a summary judgement was issued and adopted.

the proposal was/is to ASK those entities in the .INT space what they would like, going forward. Would this group be hostile to such an effort?

manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102

On 15May2015Friday, at 1:36, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

...

Speaking of .INT, I am very surprised that there has been no discussion of IANA divesting .INT and putting it in someone else's hands. While this is not a particularly urgent issue for the transition, it seems obvious to me that IANA, as the root zone file administrator, should not be in the business of running a TLD registry for international intergovernmental organizations. Why has this issue not surfaced?

--MM

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 4:09 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

You are correct Greg. Donna set me straight. It would help if I read all of the DT-C notes.

Chuck

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: CW Lists; Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

Chuck,

I'm not too sure about that. The punch list, asks the question "Composition: who will select the TLD representative that is not a ccTLD or gTLD registry?" so it seems to refer to a single representative, and one that is not a ccTLD or gTLD (regardless of membership in any ICANN structure). The punch list further refers to Annex G, page 59. Page 59 has the following list of proposed Registry members of the CSC:

* 2 x gTLD registry operators * 2 x ccTLD registry operators * 1 additional TLD representative not considered a ccTLD or gTLD registry operator such as the IAB for .ARPA could also be included in the minimum requirements but is not mandatory

Based on these data points, it appears that DT C is discussing the third bullet point, which gives .ARPA as an example. (The third bulletpoint also notes this "seat" is not "mandatory.") Therefore, it does look like the reference is to that very limited universe cited by Christopher Wilkinson: .ARPA (IANA/IAB), .INT (IANA), .MIL (US Dept of Defense), .EDU (US Dept of Commerce/Dept of Education/Educause), .GOV (US General Services Admin). (There are other "sTLDs" but these now seem to be considered gTLDs for all intents and purposes, such as .mobi, .travel, .xxx, etc.)

I don't see the harm in having a seat for these 5 (really 4, since as Martin notes, it would be odd to have the .INT operator (IANA) in the CSC) registries, since as Martin also notes, they do not otherwise have a direct voice or a natural channel through the GNSO or ccNSO.

Greg

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Christopher,

I am not on DT-C so I cannot speak for them, but my understanding is that they were talking about TLD registries that are not members of the ccNSO or RySG. Regardless, I think you raise an important issue that should be considered.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of CW Lists Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:50 PM To: Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

Dear Donna, Dear Friends and Colleagues:

With reference to the DT-C notes on the 'Punch List', attached, for which I thank you, allow me a short comment on Point 11: CSC Composition.

The concept of a TLD that is not a ccTLD or a gTLD is rather obscure. Many would consider that there are none such. However, internal evidence suggests that CWG considers that there are some.

In which case, to the best of my knowledge, the only candidates are .int, .gov, .edu and .mil. or .arpa, thus the DT-C comments under point 11, would appear to be a rather odd circumlocution, if the intention is to ensure that the USG-based TLDs, or the ICANN-based TLDs, would somehow have an 'extra' seat on the CSC.

I drew this question to your attention in my mail, below, of 26 February, but did not receive a reply. Having reviewed in some detail the most recent version of the CWG transition proposal, I still find no reference to the above TLDs (with the exception of .int)

Indeed, if it is the CWG position that these TLDs should be somehow 'grandfathered' outside the IANA transition, then may I suggest that it behoves someone - not excluding NTIA - to say so clearly, now. Otherwise there will be a lingering misunderstanding that would sit uncomfortably with the underlying proposition that the IANA transition is to the global multistakeholder Internet community.

Regards

CW

Begin forwarded message:

From: CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Proposal Version 2.0 Date: 26 Feb 2015 13:50:44 GMT+01:00 To: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>

Jonathan, Lise:

Thankyou for another draft magnum opus. As you say there are several aspects to be completed in greater detail.

Meanwhile, may I point out that under: I. The Community's Use of the IANA

- and indeed in the whole document, there is no reference to the TLDs: .gov, .mil, .edu and .arpa. These are not gTLDs, as the reference to .int confirms. For the sake of completeness, it would not be appropriate to ignore them.

---

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

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

So Greg, I would conclude from your logic below that all ccTLD delegations and redelegations should not exclude anyone not from the country/territory. Is that right? --MM From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 3:07 PM To: Martin Boyle Cc: Milton L Mueller; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain I am quite troubled by one question here, and beyond its application to the .INT question: "For so specialised a TLD, is this really something for wide community decision - stakeholders who are not stakeholders (or interested parties) in this decision?" The idea that stakeholders must be "stakeholders (or interested parties" in a particular decision in order to participate in a process really stands the multistakeholder model on its head. If we exclude certain sectors of stakeholders from a process, it really cannot be called multistakeholder any longer (and as Avri pointed out on a recent call, even an imbalanced multistakeholder group deviates from the multistakeholder model and may not be truly multistakeholder). I think we need to proceed with extreme caution whenever there is a suggestion that certain stakeholder groups do not hold a sufficient "stake" or are not competent or qualified to participate in a particular issue or process or group. By definition, the multistakeholder model involves stakeholders coming from diverse backgrounds, skillsets and concerns. This cannot be denied without compromising the legitimacy of a "multistakeholder" process or group. The idea that being an "interested party" should be a qualification for participating in a decision causes even greater concern. If anything, this could be deemed a disqualification, since a party with an interest in the outcome will tend to seek an outcome beneficial to that interest, not the community's interest or the public interest. For a variety of reasons, we do not operate that way -- being an interested party does not qualify one from participating in a multistakeholder process relating to that interest. This makes it even more important that a truly inclusive multistakeholder group be assembled to consider and resolve issues regardless of whose ox is being gored, to balance the self-interest of the interested parties and to assure the integrity of the process. Greg On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>> wrote: I'm ok with a post-transition process. I'm less ok with us plucking processes out of the air... We need to think about who asks what of whom. And once we have the input, we also need to think about who makes the decision. But is that a general discussion or just for the GAC to devise and report back on its decision? And reporting back could be based on when they agree to a collective decision - I'm not ok with telling the GAC that it needs to do something by a particular date and in a particular manner. Asking registrants about what will essentially be a redelegation process is not really an existing criterion for a gTLD, is it? (It could be an interesting way of doing it, but I'm not sure that it is without its problems.) And will the registrant necessarily be the person authorised to give a view in the organisation? For so specialised a TLD, is this really something for wide community decision - stakeholders who are not stakeholders (or interested parties) in this decision? Finally, have we agreed that the IANA functions operator should not be running a TLD registry? If so, I must have missed that discussion/decision. Bearing in mind that they have been providing the role for a number of years, this seems to me to be a decision that should be clearly justified. Martin -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: 21 May 2015 16:32 To: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain I endorsed the idea, too. As best I can tell, the issue has been more or less swept under the rug by the statement "leave it to the GAC." I have no objection in principle to affording GAC a major role in developing a recommendation for .INT, but I think the CWG as a whole should not be just "leaving it" to them; we have the responsibility to develop some guidelines as to how they should deal with it - e.g., do they actually ask the registrants what they want? Do we instruct them that IANA FO should not be running a TLD registry? Do they develop a recommendation and bring it back to the CWG? On what timetable? --MM

-----Original Message-----

I remember this and remember endorsing the idea at the time. There might have been others who also endorsed the idea at that time.

I do not see how we can avoid doing this.

Perhaps doing this can be something that comes post transition if it can be guaranteed in some way. but I believe we really need to take it into account. We can establish a process by which ti would be done immediately following transition, including the consultation with the registrants, the creation of a proposal, a community review and a decision.

We have been reminded several times in several ways by NTIA that we could not just not deal with the .int issue.

avri

On 21-May-15 07:20, manning wrote:

...

it did indeed come up on the list at least i know i brought it up. discussion never happened in the DT, a summary judgement was issued and adopted.

the proposal was/is to ASK those entities in the .INT space what they would like, going forward. Would this group be hostile to such an effort?

manning bmanning@karoshi.com<mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com> PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102<tel:310.322.8102>

On 15May2015Friday, at 1:36, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote:

...

Speaking of .INT, I am very surprised that there has been no discussion of IANA divesting .INT and putting it in someone else's hands. While this is not a particularly urgent issue for the transition, it seems obvious to me that IANA, as the root zone file administrator, should not be in the business of running a TLD registry for international intergovernmental organizations. Why has this issue not surfaced?

--MM

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 4:09 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

You are correct Greg. Donna set me straight. It would help if I read all of the DT-C notes.

Chuck

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: CW Lists; Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

Chuck,

I'm not too sure about that. The punch list, asks the question "Composition: who will select the TLD representative that is not a ccTLD or gTLD registry?" so it seems to refer to a single representative, and one that is not a ccTLD or gTLD (regardless of membership in any ICANN structure). The punch list further refers to Annex G, page 59. Page 59 has the following list of proposed Registry members of the CSC:

* 2 x gTLD registry operators * 2 x ccTLD registry operators * 1 additional TLD representative not considered a ccTLD or gTLD registry operator such as the IAB for .ARPA could also be included in the minimum requirements but is not mandatory

Based on these data points, it appears that DT C is discussing the third bullet point, which gives .ARPA as an example. (The third bulletpoint also notes this "seat" is not "mandatory.") Therefore, it does look like the reference is to that very limited universe cited by Christopher Wilkinson: .ARPA (IANA/IAB), .INT (IANA), .MIL (US Dept of Defense), .EDU (US Dept of Commerce/Dept of Education/Educause), .GOV (US General Services Admin). (There are other "sTLDs" but these now seem to be considered gTLDs for all intents and purposes, such as .mobi, .travel, .xxx, etc.)

I don't see the harm in having a seat for these 5 (really 4, since as Martin notes, it would be odd to have the .INT operator (IANA) in the CSC) registries, since as Martin also notes, they do not otherwise have a direct voice or a natural channel through the GNSO or ccNSO.

Greg

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Christopher,

I am not on DT-C so I cannot speak for them, but my understanding is that they were talking about TLD registries that are not members of the ccNSO or RySG. Regardless, I think you raise an important issue that should be considered.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of CW Lists Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:50 PM To: Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

Dear Donna, Dear Friends and Colleagues:

With reference to the DT-C notes on the 'Punch List', attached, for which I thank you, allow me a short comment on Point 11: CSC Composition.

The concept of a TLD that is not a ccTLD or a gTLD is rather obscure. Many would consider that there are none such. However, internal evidence suggests that CWG considers that there are some.

In which case, to the best of my knowledge, the only candidates are .int, .gov, .edu and .mil. or .arpa, thus the DT-C comments under point 11, would appear to be a rather odd circumlocution, if the intention is to ensure that the USG-based TLDs, or the ICANN-based TLDs, would somehow have an 'extra' seat on the CSC.

I drew this question to your attention in my mail, below, of 26 February, but did not receive a reply. Having reviewed in some detail the most recent version of the CWG transition proposal, I still find no reference to the above TLDs (with the exception of .int)

Indeed, if it is the CWG position that these TLDs should be somehow 'grandfathered' outside the IANA transition, then may I suggest that it behoves someone - not excluding NTIA - to say so clearly, now. Otherwise there will be a lingering misunderstanding that would sit uncomfortably with the underlying proposition that the IANA transition is to the global multistakeholder Internet community.

Regards

CW

Begin forwarded message:

From: CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Proposal Version 2.0 Date: 26 Feb 2015 13:50:44 GMT+01:00 To: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>

Jonathan, Lise:

Thankyou for another draft magnum opus. As you say there are several aspects to be completed in greater detail.

Meanwhile, may I point out that under: I. The Community's Use of the IANA

- and indeed in the whole document, there is no reference to the TLDs: .gov, .mil, .edu and .arpa. These are not gTLDs, as the reference to .int confirms. For the sake of completeness, it would not be appropriate to ignore them.

CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

That seems like a credible position to take, esp. this text exists in its bylaws: Article II, Section 2 Section 2. RESTRICTIONS ICANN shall not act as a Domain Name System Registry or Registrar or Internet Protocol Address Registry in competition with entities affected by the policies of ICANN. manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 22May2015Friday, at 3:16, Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

I agree with Martin that we should not be seeking to solve complex problems on the fly, and that .int would be best to be identified by us as an issue requiring resolution post-transition. We could potentially suggest that as a principle, ICANN should not be a TLD operator ?

Cheers

Keith

On 22/05/2015 6:38 a.m., Martin Boyle wrote:

...

I'm ok with a post-transition process. I'm less ok with us plucking processes out of the air...

We need to think about who asks what of whom. And once we have the input, we also need to think about who makes the decision. But is that a general discussion or just for the GAC to devise and report back on its decision? And reporting back could be based on when they agree to a collective decision - I'm not ok with telling the GAC that it needs to do something by a particular date and in a particular manner.

Asking registrants about what will essentially be a redelegation process is not really an existing criterion for a gTLD, is it? (It could be an interesting way of doing it, but I'm not sure that it is without its problems.) And will the registrant necessarily be the person authorised to give a view in the organisation?

For so specialised a TLD, is this really something for wide community decision - stakeholders who are not stakeholders (or interested parties) in this decision?

Finally, have we agreed that the IANA functions operator should not be running a TLD registry? If so, I must have missed that discussion/decision. Bearing in mind that they have been providing the role for a number of years, this seems to me to be a decision that should be clearly justified.

Martin

-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: 21 May 2015 16:32 To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

I endorsed the idea, too.

As best I can tell, the issue has been more or less swept under the rug by the statement "leave it to the GAC." I have no objection in principle to affording GAC a major role in developing a recommendation for .INT, but I think the CWG as a whole should not be just "leaving it" to them; we have the responsibility to develop some guidelines as to how they should deal with it - e.g., do they actually ask the registrants what they want? Do we instruct them that IANA FO should not be running a TLD registry? Do they develop a recommendation and bring it back to the CWG? On what timetable?

--MM

...

-----Original Message-----

I remember this and remember endorsing the idea at the time. There might have been others who also endorsed the idea at that time.

I do not see how we can avoid doing this.

Perhaps doing this can be something that comes post transition if it can be guaranteed in some way. but I believe we really need to take it into account. We can establish a process by which ti would be done immediately following transition, including the consultation with the registrants, the creation of a proposal, a community review and a decision.

We have been reminded several times in several ways by NTIA that we could not just not deal with the .int issue.

avri

On 21-May-15 07:20, manning wrote:

...

it did indeed come up on the list at least i know i brought it up. discussion never happened in the DT, a summary judgement was issued and adopted.

the proposal was/is to ASK those entities in the .INT space what they would like, going forward. Would this group be hostile to such an effort?

manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102

On 15May2015Friday, at 1:36, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

...

Speaking of .INT, I am very surprised that there has been no discussion of IANA divesting .INT and putting it in someone else's hands. While this is not a particularly urgent issue for the transition, it seems obvious to me that IANA, as the root zone file administrator, should not be in the business of running a TLD registry for international intergovernmental organizations. Why has this issue not surfaced?

--MM

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 4:09 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

You are correct Greg. Donna set me straight. It would help if I read all of the DT-C notes.

Chuck

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: CW Lists; Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

Chuck,

I'm not too sure about that. The punch list, asks the question "Composition: who will select the TLD representative that is not a ccTLD or gTLD registry?" so it seems to refer to a single representative, and one that is not a ccTLD or gTLD (regardless of membership in any ICANN structure). The punch list further refers to Annex G, page 59. Page 59 has the following list of proposed Registry members of the CSC:

* 2 x gTLD registry operators * 2 x ccTLD registry operators * 1 additional TLD representative not considered a ccTLD or gTLD registry operator such as the IAB for .ARPA could also be included in the minimum requirements but is not mandatory

Based on these data points, it appears that DT C is discussing the third bullet point, which gives .ARPA as an example. (The third bulletpoint also notes this "seat" is not "mandatory.") Therefore, it does look like the reference is to that very limited universe cited by Christopher Wilkinson: .ARPA (IANA/IAB), .INT (IANA), .MIL (US Dept of Defense), .EDU (US Dept of Commerce/Dept of Education/Educause), .GOV (US General Services Admin). (There are other "sTLDs" but these now seem to be considered gTLDs for all intents and purposes, such as .mobi, .travel, .xxx, etc.)

I don't see the harm in having a seat for these 5 (really 4, since as Martin notes, it would be odd to have the .INT operator (IANA) in the CSC) registries, since as Martin also notes, they do not otherwise have a direct voice or a natural channel through the GNSO or ccNSO.

Greg

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Christopher,

I am not on DT-C so I cannot speak for them, but my understanding is that they were talking about TLD registries that are not members of the ccNSO or RySG. Regardless, I think you raise an important issue that should be considered.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of CW Lists Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:50 PM To: Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

Dear Donna, Dear Friends and Colleagues:

With reference to the DT-C notes on the 'Punch List', attached, for which I thank you, allow me a short comment on Point 11: CSC Composition.

The concept of a TLD that is not a ccTLD or a gTLD is rather obscure. Many would consider that there are none such. However, internal evidence suggests that CWG considers that there are some.

In which case, to the best of my knowledge, the only candidates are .int, .gov, .edu and .mil. or .arpa, thus the DT-C comments under point 11, would appear to be a rather odd circumlocution, if the intention is to ensure that the USG-based TLDs, or the ICANN-based TLDs, would somehow have an 'extra' seat on the CSC.

I drew this question to your attention in my mail, below, of 26 February, but did not receive a reply. Having reviewed in some detail the most recent version of the CWG transition proposal, I still find no reference to the above TLDs (with the exception of .int)

Indeed, if it is the CWG position that these TLDs should be somehow 'grandfathered' outside the IANA transition, then may I suggest that it behoves someone - not excluding NTIA - to say so clearly, now. Otherwise there will be a lingering misunderstanding that would sit uncomfortably with the underlying proposition that the IANA transition is to the global multistakeholder Internet community.

Regards

CW

Begin forwarded message:

From: CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Proposal Version 2.0 Date: 26 Feb 2015 13:50:44 GMT+01:00 To: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>

Jonathan, Lise:

Thankyou for another draft magnum opus. As you say there are several aspects to be completed in greater detail.

Meanwhile, may I point out that under: I. The Community's Use of the IANA

- and indeed in the whole document, there is no reference to the TLDs: .gov, .mil, .edu and .arpa. These are not gTLDs, as the reference to .int confirms. For the sake of completeness, it would not be appropriate to ignore them.

---

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

interesting take. if ICANN is not “[acting ] as a Domain Name System Registry” for .INT, who is? manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 26May2015Tuesday, at 1:52, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:

I think in the case of the very restrictive nature of .int ICANN is not "[acting] as a Domain Name System Registry... in competition with entities affected by the policies of ICANN."

-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of manning Sent: 22 May 2015 16:41 To: Keith Davidson Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

That seems like a credible position to take, esp. this text exists in its bylaws: Article II, Section 2 Section 2. RESTRICTIONS

ICANN shall not act as a Domain Name System Registry or Registrar or Internet Protocol Address Registry in competition with entities affected by the policies of ICANN.

manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102

On 22May2015Friday, at 3:16, Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

...

I agree with Martin that we should not be seeking to solve complex problems on the fly, and that .int would be best to be identified by us as an issue requiring resolution post-transition. We could potentially suggest that as a principle, ICANN should not be a TLD operator ?

Cheers

Keith

On 22/05/2015 6:38 a.m., Martin Boyle wrote:

...

I'm ok with a post-transition process. I'm less ok with us plucking processes out of the air...

We need to think about who asks what of whom. And once we have the input, we also need to think about who makes the decision. But is that a general discussion or just for the GAC to devise and report back on its decision? And reporting back could be based on when they agree to a collective decision - I'm not ok with telling the GAC that it needs to do something by a particular date and in a particular manner.

Asking registrants about what will essentially be a redelegation process is not really an existing criterion for a gTLD, is it? (It could be an interesting way of doing it, but I'm not sure that it is without its problems.) And will the registrant necessarily be the person authorised to give a view in the organisation?

For so specialised a TLD, is this really something for wide community decision - stakeholders who are not stakeholders (or interested parties) in this decision?

Finally, have we agreed that the IANA functions operator should not be running a TLD registry? If so, I must have missed that discussion/decision. Bearing in mind that they have been providing the role for a number of years, this seems to me to be a decision that should be clearly justified.

Martin

-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: 21 May 2015 16:32 To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

I endorsed the idea, too.

As best I can tell, the issue has been more or less swept under the rug by the statement "leave it to the GAC." I have no objection in principle to affording GAC a major role in developing a recommendation for .INT, but I think the CWG as a whole should not be just "leaving it" to them; we have the responsibility to develop some guidelines as to how they should deal with it - e.g., do they actually ask the registrants what they want? Do we instruct them that IANA FO should not be running a TLD registry? Do they develop a recommendation and bring it back to the CWG? On what timetable?

--MM

...

-----Original Message-----

I remember this and remember endorsing the idea at the time. There might have been others who also endorsed the idea at that time.

I do not see how we can avoid doing this.

Perhaps doing this can be something that comes post transition if it can be guaranteed in some way. but I believe we really need to take it into account. We can establish a process by which ti would be done immediately following transition, including the consultation with the registrants, the creation of a proposal, a community review and a decision.

We have been reminded several times in several ways by NTIA that we could not just not deal with the .int issue.

avri

On 21-May-15 07:20, manning wrote:

...

it did indeed come up on the list at least i know i brought it up. discussion never happened in the DT, a summary judgement was issued and adopted.

the proposal was/is to ASK those entities in the .INT space what they would like, going forward. Would this group be hostile to such an effort?

manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102

On 15May2015Friday, at 1:36, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

...

Speaking of .INT, I am very surprised that there has been no discussion of IANA divesting .INT and putting it in someone else's hands. While this is not a particularly urgent issue for the transition, it seems obvious to me that IANA, as the root zone file administrator, should not be in the business of running a TLD registry for international intergovernmental organizations. Why has this issue not surfaced?

--MM

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 4:09 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

You are correct Greg. Donna set me straight. It would help if I read all of the DT-C notes.

Chuck

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: CW Lists; Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

Chuck,

I'm not too sure about that. The punch list, asks the question "Composition: who will select the TLD representative that is not a ccTLD or gTLD registry?" so it seems to refer to a single representative, and one that is not a ccTLD or gTLD (regardless of membership in any ICANN structure). The punch list further refers to Annex G, page 59. Page 59 has the following list of proposed Registry members of the CSC:

* 2 x gTLD registry operators * 2 x ccTLD registry operators * 1 additional TLD representative not considered a ccTLD or gTLD registry operator such as the IAB for .ARPA could also be included in the minimum requirements but is not mandatory

Based on these data points, it appears that DT C is discussing the third bullet point, which gives .ARPA as an example. (The third bulletpoint also notes this "seat" is not "mandatory.") Therefore, it does look like the reference is to that very limited universe cited by Christopher Wilkinson: .ARPA (IANA/IAB), .INT (IANA), .MIL (US Dept of Defense), .EDU (US Dept of Commerce/Dept of Education/Educause), .GOV (US General Services Admin). (There are other "sTLDs" but these now seem to be considered gTLDs for all intents and purposes, such as .mobi, .travel, .xxx, etc.)

I don't see the harm in having a seat for these 5 (really 4, since as Martin notes, it would be odd to have the .INT operator (IANA) in the CSC) registries, since as Martin also notes, they do not otherwise have a direct voice or a natural channel through the GNSO or ccNSO.

Greg

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Christopher,

I am not on DT-C so I cannot speak for them, but my understanding is that they were talking about TLD registries that are not members of the ccNSO or RySG. Regardless, I think you raise an important issue that should be considered.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of CW Lists Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:50 PM To: Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Sidley punch list items considered by CSC Design Team

Dear Donna, Dear Friends and Colleagues:

With reference to the DT-C notes on the 'Punch List', attached, for which I thank you, allow me a short comment on Point 11: CSC Composition.

The concept of a TLD that is not a ccTLD or a gTLD is rather obscure. Many would consider that there are none such. However, internal evidence suggests that CWG considers that there are some.

In which case, to the best of my knowledge, the only candidates are .int, .gov, .edu and .mil. or .arpa, thus the DT-C comments under point 11, would appear to be a rather odd circumlocution, if the intention is to ensure that the USG-based TLDs, or the ICANN-based TLDs, would somehow have an 'extra' seat on the CSC.

I drew this question to your attention in my mail, below, of 26 February, but did not receive a reply. Having reviewed in some detail the most recent version of the CWG transition proposal, I still find no reference to the above TLDs (with the exception of .int)

Indeed, if it is the CWG position that these TLDs should be somehow 'grandfathered' outside the IANA transition, then may I suggest that it behoves someone - not excluding NTIA - to say so clearly, now. Otherwise there will be a lingering misunderstanding that would sit uncomfortably with the underlying proposition that the IANA transition is to the global multistakeholder Internet community.

Regards

CW

Begin forwarded message:

From: CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Proposal Version 2.0 Date: 26 Feb 2015 13:50:44 GMT+01:00 To: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org Stewardship" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>

Jonathan, Lise:

Thankyou for another draft magnum opus. As you say there are several aspects to be completed in greater detail.

Meanwhile, may I point out that under: I. The Community's Use of the IANA

- and indeed in the whole document, there is no reference to the TLDs: .gov, .mil, .edu and .arpa. These are not gTLDs, as the reference to .int confirms. For the sake of completeness, it would not be appropriate to ignore them.

---

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

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship