Dear Elise,

Thank you for your comment. I am forwarding this to the correct CWG mail list.

Regards,

Yuko

From: Lindeberg, Elise [mailto:elise.lindeberg@Nkom.no]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 6:29 AM
To: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org; Yuko Green <yuko.green@icann.org>
Subject: Naming Function Agreement Review document

Dear Yuko

Regarding the comments made by Paul Kane on section 4,7 - n/a in the Naming Function Agreement Review document.

- Section 4.7 and subsequent is formulated as a general reference to relevant and equivalent policies that must be considered by the contractor. Special reference to section 1.3 , - and the “where applicable” in connection with the GAC principles in section 4.7 and subsequent is unbalanced in this context - the contractor will have to consider and substantiate the relevance of all mentioned/listed policies in its decisions and actions. So, in short form - I don’t agree with the adding of “”were applicable” or special reference to any subsection of the referenced documents such as section 1.3 of the GAC principles.

4.7	2. The reference to the GAC Principles should read: “Where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the 2005 Governmental Advisory Committee Principles and Guidelines for the Delgation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains (“GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles”).	We’d like to understand more about the need for specific reference to Section 1.3. We are interested in accommodating this request, but need a bit more information.	ICANN would like more information regarding the need for specific reference to Section 1.3.
n/a	Any subsequent reference to the GAC Principles should read, “where applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles.”	See above.	ICANN would like more information regarding the need for specific reference to Section 1.3.

Elise Lindeberg

Senior Legal Adviser

Norwegian GAC representative

Norwegian Communications Authority

Dir. +47 22 824607 Mob. +47 90190947

ekl@nkom.no