[Sorry for the slow response -- bit buried right now] Richard, Thanks very much for this, in particular the pointers to the historical documents -- I've looked for those in the past. Fascinating stuff, particularly for folks like myself who find early Internet history interesting. As I joined ICANN (the first time) in Nov 2005, the events you provided pointers to were a bit before my time. My understanding is that while ICANN was indeed involved in the workshop that preceded the E.int work within the ITU, ICANN was not actually involved in the E.int work that led to E.910 itself (I know I wasn't). Is this incorrect? Also, since I wasn't involved in the E.int work, I'm unaware of how much input or involvement the international treaty organizations currently registered in .INT (other than the ITU obviously) had in the formulation of the requirements documented in E.910. My reading of E.910 suggests a level of top-down presumption that, notwithstanding the historical documents you reference, does not necessary correspond to the bottom-up methodologies now used in the definition of TLD registry policies. For example, of the 180+ current treaty based organizations registered in .INT, how many were actually substantively involved in the development of E.910? Given how the management of the namespace has evolved in the nearly a decade since E.910 was published by the ITU, and in particular, how TLD registry policies are now generally developed via multi-stakeholder processes in a bottom-up fashion, I'm still unsure whether it makes a whole lot of sense to make a change without engaging the directly impacted parties. Further, while it is true that .INT is an IANA function and, as such, will be impacted by the transition of the stewardship of that function from NTIA, I've not gotten the impression that there is a whole lot of pressure to change from the current status quo in terms of day-to-day operations. Do you see things differently? Regards, -drc -----Original Message----- From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 7:36 AM To: CWG Mailing List <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Further input to CWG-Stewardship on .int

Forwarding this message on behalf of Richard Hill.

On 5/4/15, 5:47 AM, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:

...

Please forward this to CWG-Stewardship.

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

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

David says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and at:

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

Best, Richard