<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I was comfortable with the approach in this email until the very end, when I got to the reference to "relevant stakeholders." Who are the irrelevant stakeholders, and who decides who is relevant and who is irrelevant?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If you take the "multi" out of multistakeholder, eventually you end up with a cartel, which is not a form of governance, much less good governance.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Lindeberg, Elise <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:elise.lindeberg@nkom.no" target="_blank">elise.lindeberg@nkom.no</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="NO-BOK" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear CWG colleagues, - Lise and Jonathan<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Following the discussion on .int on the CWG list , I like to comment.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">On earlier process:<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p style="margin-left:20.25pt"><u><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span><u></u></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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 16<sup>th</sup> of April.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt">"Dear Lise and Jonathan<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt">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.
<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt">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.
<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;color:red">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, -
</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;color:red">there is no need for any changes in the management of the .int domain in conjunction with the transition.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt">Elise”<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">On the way forward/final proposal:<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red">CWG has considered the .int domain, and concluded that
<u>provided there is no policy change under .int done by ICANN/IANA</u> we don’t see
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red">any need for changes in the management of the .int domain
<u>in conjunction with the transition</u>. Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders post transition.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Kind regards
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Networks Department<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Norwegian Communications Authority
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">e-mail:
</span><span><a href="mailto:ekl@nkom.no" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext">ekl@nkom.no</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B47%2090190947" value="+4790190947" target="_blank">+47 90190947</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<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>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>