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@Nkom.no]
Sendt: 16. april 2015 16:07
Til: lisefuhrforwader; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> (jrobinson@afilias.info)
Cc: cwg-stewardship@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: ekl@nkom.no

Mobile: +47 90190947