[CWG-Stewardship] .int

[Lise Fuhr]

Dear All,

 

Thank you for your emails.

We discussed the priority 2 DTs on the #38 call.

 

Here is the note on this issue:

 

Priority 2 DTs



•        Chairs have reassessed priority two items

 

•        DT G - Chairs recommend that this dealt with through dialogue with
other communities as it is not limited to naming community. Should there be
an IPR issue that is naming specific, the CWG would obtain input from the
legal advisors. Call has been scheduled with chairs of CRISP team to
co-ordinate, not only on this issue but also broader conversations.

 

•        DT H (.INT) - Chairs understand that this issue is being dealt with
by the GAC - await GAC input. 

 

•        DT I (competition policy & conflict of interest) - CWG chairs
consider that this issue is adequately addressed by DT C. Furthermore, legal
advisors have 

provided input on antitrust matters. If needed, additional guidance could be
sought from the legal advisors concerning best practices governance
guidance. 

No need for a DT.

 

•        DT J (confidentiality & perception of conflict of interest) - CWG
chairs consider that this issue is adequately addressed by DT C.
Furthermore, legal advisors have provided input on antitrust matters. If
needed, additional guidance could be sought from the legal advisors
concerning best practices governance 

guidance. No need for a DT.

 

•        DT K (OFAC) - issue is being dealt with by ICANN as a whole.
Proposed language will be circulated that should cover this commitment.

 

Best regards,

Lise

 

 

Fra: Lindeberg, Elise [mailto:elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no] 
Sendt: 16. april 2015 16:07
Til: lisefuhrforwader; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
(jrobinson at afilias.info)
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Emne: .int 

 

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:  <mailto:ekl at nkom.no> ekl at nkom.no

Mobile: +47 90190947

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150416/34cbe776/attachment.html>