[CWG-Stewardship] .int

[manning]

thanks, although neither my own nor Avri’s inputs were considered or acknowledged.
I was hoping that there would be some actual discussion of this before a ruling was made.


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



On 16April2015Thursday, at 7:06, Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg
> Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative
> Networks Department
> Norwegian Communications Authority
> e-mail: ekl at nkom.no
> Mobile: +47 90190947
> 
> 
> 
> <Dot INT Fact Sheet.docx>_______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship