All,  - so the use of the term “relevant stakeholders”  was an attempt not to rule our anyone at this stage in the “to be started and decided later” process in the Multistakeholder Community.  My mistake to think this was a good solution… - so I’m fine with the suggestion to remove “relevant stakeholders” .

Elise

Fra: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
Sendt: 22. mai 2015 19:53
Til: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Lindeberg, Elise
Kopi: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org'
Emne: RE: Fate of the .INT domain

I agree with you Chuck but the full sentence would say that the _review_ would begin immediately after the transition, not that anything would change immediately after. It would read like this:

Future administration of the .int domain should be subject to review from relevant stakeholders immediately after the implementation of the IANA stewardship transition.

Now, when has this community completed a review of anything in less than 6 months, especially when GAC is involved? By the way, I think we should also try to make Greg happy and remove the words “from relevant stakeholders”

It might be okay to start the review process immediately after transition but I think it would be a good to allow 6 months or so after the transition before making any additional changes.  In other words, I don’t think saying ‘immediately after transition’ is a good way to word it.  The general approach though seems fine to me.

Chuck