<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:24 AM, manning <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com" target="_blank">bmanning@karoshi.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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<br>
ever held, no participation for the larger community, no participation from registrants in the .INT space, only email to the GAC.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
manning<br>
<a href="mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com">bmanning@karoshi.com</a><br>
PO Box 12317<br>
Marina del Rey, CA 90295<br>
<a href="tel:310.322.8102" value="+13103228102">310.322.8102</a><br>
<span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
On 22May2015Friday, at 7:30, Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Dear CWG colleagues, - Lise and Jonathan<br>
><br>
> Following the discussion on .int on the CWG list , I like to comment.<br>
><br>
> On earlier process:<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> "Dear Lise and Jonathan<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> Elise”<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> On the way forward/final proposal:<br>
><br>
> 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:<br>
><br>
</span>> 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.<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb">><br>
><br>
> Kind regards<br>
><br>
> Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg<br>
> Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative<br>
> Networks Department<br>
> Norwegian Communications Authority<br>
> e-mail: <a href="mailto:ekl@nkom.no">ekl@nkom.no</a><br>
> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B47%2090190947" value="+4790190947">+47 90190947</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> _______________________________________________<br>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>