WP1 Meeting # 11 (16 April)

Transcript

Transcript CCWG WP1 Meeting #11 16 April.doc

Transcript CCWG WP1 Meeting #11 16 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4ryznqnabx/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-accountability-legal-16apr15-en.mp3

Agenda

1. Content for First Public Comment Report

- continue working through the document, picking up where we left off

- review and agree any final changes

- agree any final drafting changes for the rapporteur to make

2. Next Steps from now to Friday Deadline

- I will be circulating our content to the full CCWG list on or around 2359 on Friday 17 April, UTC

- We will clarify what happens between this call and the Friday deadline in this agenda item

- Time-frames for review of the comment report, how I will deal with those, etc - all up for discussion

3. Any Other Business

Notes

WP1 Meeting #11 on 16 April 

Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior:

http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards

Links:  WP1 Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

Starting from 6.5.6

Recalling the entire ICANN Board

comment: regarding petitioning power, on the basis of 2 or more SO/AC.

Suggest a much higher bar.  Create an extreme measure because everything

else hasn't worked to that point.

What higher threshold: 2/3 of all SO/AC in ICANN (of 7 total, 3 SO and 4

AC, 2/3 cannot be reached by the AC alone).

In a group that broadly works on consensus, 75% to remove the Board seems low. 

Some earlier comment that did not want 1 SO or AC to be able to block this power. 

Is there any voice for the NomCom in removing their directors?

As a whole board removal the question is about removal not appointment.

WP1 does not need to address the mechanism for doing this now.

Using options to describe these thresholds would allow the community to

see why certain % have been offered, including an explanation of thinking

behind the options. Suggest creating a table to represent thresholds.

3rd paragraph.  Internal mandate and discussion.  Can it be unbolded? Yes, Agreed

6.6. Incorporating AOC into the ICANN Bylaws

Stress test 14.  After the contract with NTIA's gone there is nothing

holding ICANN to stay within the AoC.  To answer the test, to retain the

commitment and reviews, add the AoC to the bylaws, as a WS1 item.

1st preserve 3, 4, 7, and 8, and the commitments cited in the section 9 reviews.

Para 1, 2, 5, and 6 do not reference commitments made by ICANN, not of concern to the CCWG

Noted that "Other parts of the AoC are either preamble text or commitments

of the US Government, so these have not been proposed as additions to the

ICANN bylaws."

Left column is the commitment to the community, the right column is how to approve on this commitments in the core values.

suggestion to add "and approval" to para 3 to "Ensure that decisions made

related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the

global public interest and are accountable, transparent and bottom-up in

their formulation" [and in their approval]

Need care when adding to the bylaws, to be sure we know what we mean.

further caution: the word "global": has been added so needs to be

underlined.  bottom-up in their formulation is loose language for bylaws.

And not all ICANN processes are bottom-up.

Note: the text will get further scrutiny.

Add to the chapeau: that text being added to the bylaw is understandable and implementable.

suggested change: "and should respect the bottom-up multistakeholder nature of  ICANN".  Accepted.

Chapeau, remove "the following..."  (and in other sections)

Financial and non-commercial are not two sides of the same coin.  The text was intended to refer to broad financial impact.  Non-financial impact might be considered.

Para 7.  Using reasonable has been defined over years of law, adequate does't the same legal clarity. Suggest that what trying to do is propose
the sense of the change we desire, and too much close text editing gets away from that goal.

Para 8b, should, be considered by the CCWG. 

AoC reviews.  Suggestion to add more explanatory header material.

AoC reviews.  Suggestion to add more explanatory header material, 4 recommendations.  The first text box is from the ATRT2 report.

Avri to draft standalone paragraph about the CWG review mechanisms.

SSR review.  Suggestion to hold more frequently than five years, "This periodic review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years"

New gTLD expansion "Promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice" AoC is proscriptive, new text tried to simplify.

WHOIS/directory services

Addition of reference to the OECD guidelines (remove, note text)

Periodic review of the IANA Function 

Information now in CWG.  First after 2 years and subsequently every 5.

Packaged as an AoC review.

Bylaws changes suggested by Stress Tests

Force the board to respond to SO/AC advice. So that the board has taken a stand on advice, which then would be subject to review.

Next Steps:

New version 3.2 will be sent to the list immediately.  Later, a tidied version, with comments and table for the voting threshold as clean document and track changes will be distributed, this version will be open for any changes.  Final version responding to last comments will be sent to the CCWG (as directed by co-chairs)

END

Action Items

none noted

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (4/16/2015 13:35) Welcome to WP1 Meeting #11 on 16 April.     Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards 

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (13:57) yes I can hear you

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (13:57) Thx

  Avri Doria: (13:58) i am on another call for the next hour, but will hang out on the AC and will try to listen in.

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (13:59) hello all

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (13:59) hi all

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:59) it's like deja vu

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:00) :-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:00) we will start in 3 min or so - from page six, section 6.5.6

  Avri Doria: (14:00) i just sent a paragagh on the nomcom recall process.

  Adam Peake: (14:01) link to the document:

  Adam Peake: (14:01) https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/97715774/2015-04-16-CCWG-ACCT-WP1-firstcommentreport-content-v3-1.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1429190604811&api=v2

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:05) if you include SSAC/RSAC   7

  Avri Doria: (14:05) Agree with Robin, there should be near consensus in the ACSO before the process begins. at least 2 SO and 2 AC

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:06) and at least  one of each?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:06) and I'm good with the 2/3rds

  Avri Doria: (14:07) so all of the AC alone would be enough?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:08) I do not think it should be that Avri  need  an AC _ an SO in the mox

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:08) mix

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:09) I agree with Cherly - mix

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:09) explicitly true please!

  Avri Doria: (14:09) even 2.3 would require that.  just did the math.  it would take 4.6 ACSO

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:10) I would also support raising this 75% to 85%

  Avri Doria: (14:11) 1 should not be enoug to stop it.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:12) 85%  is even better

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:12) I would be interested to revisit the % once we confirm the exact composition of the voters. I'm good with discussing the numbers to share rough idea but hard to truly grasp the implications until we have a picture of the actual compoement. 

  Avri Doria: (14:13) true i have been assuming 1 vote per ACSO.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:13) Yes I agree with higher % than 75%

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (14:13) The actual percentage number we pick could be important if we do divided voting (multi-level portioned voting) as was discussed with lawyers (yesterday I think)

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (14:14) that was my assumption too - 1 vote per SO/AC, but we need to clarify this

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:14) I don't see NomCom  as part of the spill the Board  equation bTW

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:14) Exactly  @Jordan

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:14) Sure David I'm not disgreeing with discusssing the %, I find this useful

  Avri Doria: (14:14) but would not the approval of each of the appointing orgs still be required as a formality.  since they appointed them?

  Greg Shatan: (14:15) @CLO I don't necessarily disagree, I just didn't want us to overlook the point, and we should acknowledge it in our writing.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (14:16) understrood @Greg  but as an ex NC Chair  and still pasrt of the leadership of it  I thought I should  give an opinion

  Greg Shatan: (14:17) @CLO, I think you should always give your opinion.  :-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (14:17) lol

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (14:17) +1 Steve on presenting options w related logic

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (14:17) + 1 Steve

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (14:17) yes agreed

  Greg Shatan: (14:19) We also need to deal with the proportionality issue.  It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:20) Not a mistrust of the system, just an accoutability mechanism to increase trust in the system

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:21) whenever confronted by a chicken-or-egg dilemma, I always say:  Don't be chicken.  Give us the egg, and we'll bring home the bacon!

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:21) even if we present just a high number, we shoudl explain WHY we picked that number

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:22) That's why I've been saying spill the board now so it's not soo taboo to talk about

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:22) Shall we Agree/Disagree in Adobe?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (14:23) exactly @Steve

  Avri Doria: (14:24) i am also listening and can break out if necessary

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:31) On 6.6.1 --  I propose a slight wording edit to the text clarify what text I was proposing on p. 7 (AoC para 3 -> proposed core value 6)Add "and approval" to the end of the proposed new text so it reads:  "and bottom-up in their formulation and approval."This edit is intended to clarify that ICANN's decisions will done with the approval of the bottom-up community.

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (14:33) it seems fine

  Greg Shatan: (14:34) Shatan rhymes with Manhattan

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:38) Without the consent of the governed, governance is illegitimate.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:38) Exactly!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:38) this is core principle of democracy

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:40) Robin -- you should respond to Greg. So please get in the queu

  Samantha Eisner: (14:40) I'll provide more detailed comments explaining my concern.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:40) The word "global" is not being added.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:41) OH the second Global

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:41) my apologies

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:42) we can put options on this, like with the other issues.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:42) there's LOTS of aspirational text in the bylaws today

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (14:44) Good points Jordan

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:44) exactly. the draft text will be black and white unless we select a grey typeface

  Greg Shatan: (14:44) Proposed textZ:"and should respect the bottom-up multistakeholder nature of  ICANN"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (14:45) LOL @Jonathan ;-)  but isn't dark brown text on off white page the most readable??

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:46) "bottom-up manner" is a good suggestion.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:46) We could add a note just above this table along these lines: "In reviewing these proposals, the community should consider the degree to which these commitments are implementable and reasonable."

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:48) @jordan -- I certainly wouldn't add 'reasonable'.  

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:48) The Corporation may consider much of what we are doing as not reasonable

  Samantha Eisner: (14:49) Whether or not "The Corporation" thinks that they're reasonable, shouldn't the community believe they are?

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:51) The reconciliation will happen in the CCWG next week

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:51) We can specifically draw Becky's team's attention to this

  Greg Shatan: (14:52) Are both WPs working on putting the AoC into the Bylaws???

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (14:53) @Greg -- WP2 has always held the pen on Core Values.  In Istanbul they added explicit recogniton of bringin 3,4,7,8 into Core Values

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (14:54) That's my recollection as well, altho only on Sunday mtg in Istanbul by phone,

  Greg Shatan: (14:54) This really needs to be worked out.   An internally inconsistent document is going to look like we were in a spaghetti fight.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:55) It won't be inconsistent, Greg.

  Avri Doria: (14:55) Can we send a communication to WP2?  (note: i tried to get on WP2, but never managed.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:55) Yes, we can get this to WP2.

  Greg Shatan: (14:56) Actually, I think the goal for ICANN should be that every decision is transparent.

  Greg Shatan: (14:58) It's one thing to be committed.  Another thing to say every decision will be formulated from the bottom-up.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:58) gthese are core values the corporation is committing to

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:58) I can live with he rewording, Greg.  But every decision at ICANN isn't made transparently either.  It isn't about "every" decision.  It is about the ones that warrant it.

  Greg Shatan: (14:59) Steve:  Actuallly, it's DOC that is affirming its commitment to the bottom up multistakeholder approach.  Not ICANN....

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (14:59) these ARE THE GENERAL VALUES to be clear

  Greg Shatan: (15:01) The same chapeau text beginning with "The following edits..." needs to be rmoved from each cell on the right hand side.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:01) yep I am assuming that gets deleted each time

  Greg Shatan: (15:01) @Jordan, thx

  Samantha Eisner: (15:02) We need clarification on what any "or non-commercial" impact would mean and how that would be measured.  Again goes to implementation

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:03) financial or non-financial

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:04) please mute if you are not speaking.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:04) We are Non-Commercial Stakeholders - we have interests

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (15:05) I agree w/Greg and think “including any financial impact” does not read as excluding other considerations

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:05) I would agree with that suggestion, Steve, since it doesn't prejudice one side over the other.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:06) Greg's comment is consistent with my understanding . i'm also good with Steve's suggestion.

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (15:06) agree wJordan

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (15:06) +1 Jordan

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:06) it means something to the only interest who isn't mentioned in it.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:06) +1 Jordan

  Samantha Eisner: (15:06) Greg stated my concerns, I'm out of the cue

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:07) options in the text

  Greg Shatan: (15:07) Good point.  I think this just requires ICANN to INCLUDE financial impact in the analysis.  We would actually be shooting ourselves in the foot to remove financial.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:07) we need to get publiccomment on the options

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:07) let's leave it in in bold

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (15:07) Let's note as option and move on

  Greg Shatan: (15:08) We are moving too fast to draft actual text and too slow to consider the concepts.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:08) agree with Jordan - leave in bold and get public comment

  Greg Shatan: (15:09) This is a heightened requirement to include financial impact in the general analysis required by the language.

  Samantha Eisner: (15:10) I have a comment but I can send in writing

  Samantha Eisner: (15:10) No issues with a notice requirement

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:11) Robin you need to untick yourself ;)

  Samantha Eisner: (15:11) But I do think that there's some confusion about ICANN giving notice about policy making (when those are activities in the policy development realm) as opposed to notice about the budgetplanning processes

  Samantha Eisner: (15:12) I mean ICANN being required to give notice on policy development

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:12) I've got a proposal on this

  Greg Shatan: (15:13) When would this notice be required in, e.g., a gTLD PDP process?

  Greg Shatan: (15:14) And whose decisions are we talking about? The Board?  The GNSO?  The public comment process?

  Leon Sanchez: (15:14) I need to leave the call. Sorry

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:14) all of these words have ambiguity

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:15) it is the nature of language

  Greg Shatan: (15:17) Is it the length of pubic comment periods?  Is it the work of this CCWG?  Are we violating this bylaw by moving at the speed we are moving?  Some would say so.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:17) as Rapporteur, I propose adding this just above this table ...

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:17) In reviewing this suggested approach to incorporating the AoC commitments in the bylaws, the community should consider the degree to which it finds the suggestions implementable and reasonable. The concepts outlined through these changes, rather than the specific drafting quality or precision, are the points to consider at this stage in the CCWG’s work.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:18) none of these are improvements either.  I thought this was an accountability improvement process.

  Greg Shatan: (15:18) I have no problem moving the AoC as is into the Bylaws.  Every new change needs to be carefully considered.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:19) what improvement is being made to accountabilty?  this is all status quo

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (15:19) I like Jordan's idea of a general reading instruiction

  Avri Doria: (15:19) btw, i am now only in this meeting

  Greg Shatan: (15:19) I don't think Sam was objecting to the existing AoC language.... Not to put words in her mouth.

  Avri Doria: (15:19) trying to follw 2 meetings at he same time is stressful, especially whne both meetings are stressing.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:20) 8 A is kind of the purpose anyway

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:20) we've decided to make no improvements to accountability and accept the status quo

  Samantha Eisner: (15:20) I was not in any way objecting to teh words of teh AoC language, nor with an inclusion of a notice requirement

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (15:20) sorry - lost adobe - where are we

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:20) I am sorry for being so strident just now, Sam and Steve, but that conversation really wasn't going anywhere.

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:21) I think the bottom up in c) is good to keep

  Greg Shatan: (15:21) Are we just skipping (a) and (b)?

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (15:22) so (b) is for the full CCWG

  Greg Shatan: (15:22) We should put (b) in as long as it's being considered.

  Greg Shatan: (15:22) Even if it's controversial.

  Greg Shatan: (15:24) You can put it in brackets if you want.

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (15:26) @Greg, I am ok as is so long as (b) is teed up for full CCWG discussion or put in right column

  Samantha Eisner: (15:26) Point of clarification:  If there are changes to the words of the reviews as they are incorporated into the Bylaws, what is the intended impact on the Affirmation of Commitments as a document? 

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:27) we get rid of the AoC when we're done

  Avri Doria: (15:27) Sam, that is an intersting point i have wondered about.  i a would assume the in the even NTIA accepts all fo this stuff, it superceded and by mutla agreement, NTIA and ICANN accept the replacement.

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (15:28) or NTIA to terminate

  Samantha Eisner: (15:34) @Steve, that number is right

  Samantha Eisner: (15:34) If we're all tired now, just wait!

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (15:35) Just to point out that I am sure that 8b will be an issue that the GAC would want to discuss

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (15:35) Ahhh all good for the soul ;-)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:35) this call finishes in 25 minutes

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (15:36) Julia  8b  was of course one of the specific objectives of the ATRT1 review...

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:36) is the 8B referred to the one about HQ in the USA/

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (15:37) Sorry wrong b. :-(  

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (15:38) Yes Avri

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (15:40) Yes Cheryl you are right. I intended to refer to the part HQ in the US part.

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (15:42) this makes sense to me. just a clarification: would this placeholder refer to the IANA names function?

  Avri Doria: (15:43) Yes Athina, we know better that to do anything that applies to anything other than names.

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (15:43) thank you for this clarification, Avri :)

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:44) Steve, can we skip the intro?

  Greg Shatan: (15:45) @Avri & Athina: Not to be contrary, but the CCWG's remit is not limited to names, even though the CWG is.  The CCWG is supposed to enhance accountability to all stakeholders.

  Avri Doria: (15:45) right but we were talking about text that would be submitted by CWG.

  Avri Doria: (15:47) though, having said that, we are also working on a Sepration Mechanism bylaw.  In that one thee is a question of whether the particpants in a group that decided on separation and a possible RFC should include people fro the other communities, kind of like a ICG.  I think it should, but I am loathe to include anything that includes non ICANN people.

  Avri Doria: (15:47) not RFC but RFP

  Avri Doria: (15:48) as alwwyas please forgive the massive typo attack.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:49) yup

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:49) I do that too  Avri:) I assume your last comment is the work for CWG.

  Avri Doria: (15:49) yes.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (15:49) Ack

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (15:50) thanks Avri

  Avri Doria: (15:50) i just made a flat statement about never presuming on the particiaption on non ICANN fols in the CWg, but in this case i am fretting over it.

  Avri Doria: (15:51) Not a discussion for here, but perhaps outside.  Can CWG design a Separation mechanism that does not include Numbers and Protocols in the decsion making.

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (15:52) exactly

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:52)   Finally, we interpret the proposed stress test as capturing this important distinction in GAC advice, with an appropriate remedy in the form of a Bylaws amendment to reinforce the ICANN community’s expectation that anything less than consensus is not advice that triggers the Bylaw provisions.     

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:52) I just pasted NTIA's official position on this

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (15:53) meant exactly @Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz, ccTLD member): (15:53) We are giong to finish this call about five minutes late -- I hope people can live with this.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (15:54) Well covered @Steve...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (15:55) That is well recognised  @Kavous 

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (15:56) this sugested  text covers that perfectly well

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:56) Thanks Steve!

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:56) did Jordan say Torrid, or Horrid?

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (15:57) Thank you Steve

  Greg Shatan: (15:57) I think this language from Suzanne Radell's email is even more relevant: "As a threshold matter, the USG considers the stress test both appropriate and necessary to meet the requirement that the IANA transition should not yield a government-led or an intergovernmental replacement for NTIA’s current stewardship role."

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (15:58) Thanks, Greg.   But as Jordan says, we can justify this change if the community wants it, whether or not the NTIA 'requires' it.

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (16:01) Thank you, Kavouss

  Avri Doria: (16:01) thanks

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (16:01) thank you Jordan and all for all your work

  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (16:01) Yes, thank you very much

  Avri Doria: (16:01) yeah Jordan has more than any of us.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (16:01) Good work everyone...Thanks Jordan... Thanks everyone bye (for now)

  David McAuley (Legal Sub-Team): (16:01) Thanks Jordan and all

  Avri Doria: (16:01) bye

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (16:02) Txh Jordan, Steve & all!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:02) thanks Jordan and all!  bye.

  Adam Peake: (16:02) thank you

  FIONA ASONGA (ASO): (16:02) thanks and bye