Proposed Agenda 

1. Opening Remarks

2. Recap of the High Instensity Meetings 

3. Update on Public Comments

    a. Mechanics & process

    b. Implications for Design Teams/ CWG (whole)

    c. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses

4. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal 

5. 1st Reading of Final Proposal 

6. CCWG-Accountability 

   a. Coordination update

   b. Phrasing conditionality in the CWG Proposal 

   c. CCWG-Accountability Public Comment close on 3 June 

7. Overall Timeline / Milestones

    a. Communications

    b. Webinars on 11 June (interpretation?)

    c. Sessions at ICANN 53

8. Client Committee - Instructions to Sidley

9. AOB

10. Closing Remarks

Notes

Draft Final Proposal available on Wiki here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/DYHeBQ. 

1. Opening Remarks

• first version of final proposal is out. 
• opportunity to wrap up
• proposing to do a "page turn" to read through any areas and provide comments

2. Recap of the High Intensity Meetings 

• Solid sessions that tackles scope of PTI Board, composition, IFR, etc. 
• Made a lot of progress -- very encouraging 

3. Update on Public Comments

• Mechanics & process: 55 submissions total; DTs are working on their action items and the plan is to circulate an updated version by Thursday's meeting 
• Implications for Design Teams/ CWG (whole): two responsibilities: responding to actions and reviewing responses provided in Review Tool 
• Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses: the plan is to circulate an updated version by Thursday's meeting 

4. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal 

• Follow up call with Xavier from ICANN Finance and expect to receive responses today 
• Have yet to hear anything from ICANN Legal but this has been escalated with Theresa Swinehart

5. 1st Reading of Final Proposal 

Focus on updates to Sections III, IV, V

Paragraph 98: 

Iron-out issues regarding transferring IANA to PTI (have been limited to IANA naming functions but this creates awkwardness)

Paragraph 102: 

• take out "provisional" 
• add additional "independent" directors
• add sentence: "CWG-Stewardship requires that the independent PTI Board members be selected through an appropriately rigorous selection method for which the NomCom is qualified"

Note from Sidley: ICANN Board Directors are not considered "insiders". The idea is to be independent of ICANN management. 

Paragraph 106: 

Martin put a proposal for wording on the CWG-Stewardship list: add to the end:

“However, the review mandate is strictly limited to evaluation against the SOW and does not include any policy or contracting issues that are not 
part of the IANA functions operation contract.  In particular it does not include issues related to policy development and adoption processes, or 
evaluation or contract enforcement measures between contracted TLDs and ICANN.”

Paragraph 111: 

Martin suggested an edit for this paragraph

Paragraph 113: 

Chuck made comments. Provide clarity about RFP

Action: Avri to provide clarification text

For Changes to Root Zone Management... --> DT-F will provide a new version shortly that will cover both main text and Annex

Action: Alan to send DT-F update to staff when finalized 

Paragraph 150

change 3 months to "9 months"

No objection to "ring-fenced" funds

Annex F: update membership (note an extra person in RySG where not supposed to be) 

6. CCWG-Accountability 

• Coordination update: CCWG chairs will attend webinars; close communication and coordination for upcoming ICANN 53 meeting
• Phrasing conditionality in the CWG Proposal: important aspect of the proposal with Sidley's help
• CCWG-Accountability Public Comment close on 3 June: chairs will provide response to CCWG public comment (since CCWG chairs provided comments in CWG PC)

7. Overall Timeline / Milestones

• Communications: big responsibility on SO/AC appointed members
• Webinars on 11 June (interpretation?): proposed at 6:00 UTC and 13:00 UTC
• Sessions at ICANN 53: 

Action: Grace to circulate schedule and agenda for ICANN 53.  

8. Client Committee - Instructions to Sidley

Action: Chairs to put summary email to Sidley guiding them on areas of work

9. AOB

10. Closing Remarks

You'll see a new draft of the document very shortly!

Action Items

Action: Avri to provide clarification text

Action: Alan to send DT-F update to staff when finalized 

Action: Grace to circulate schedule and agenda for ICANN 53. 

Action: Chairs to put summary email to Sidley guiding them on areas of work

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA #56 2 June.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #56 2 June.pdf

Recordings

Adobe Connect Recording can be accessed here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1bwoltakrf/

MP3 Recording Link can be accessed here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-02jun15-en.mp3

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (6/2/2015 11:37) Welcome to the CWG IANA Meeting #56 on 2 June 2015.

  Jonathan Robinson: (11:52) Thank-you Brenda. Welcome All on behalf of the co-chairs

  Avri Doria: (11:55) i have developed a new habit.  everytime a conference call starts I must make a cup of coffee or i just ca't do it.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:56) Hi all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:56) coffee free for me Avri

  Holly Gregory: (11:57) hello everyone.  missed you over the last several days

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (11:57) I'd like to sleep tonight - an early start

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (11:57) Holly has Stokholm syndrome, it would seem.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:57) hello all

  Holly Gregory: (11:57) @Graeme +1

  Milton Mueller: (11:58) howdy all

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (11:59) Careful, coffee is a gateway drug.  Next it will be espresso....

  Milton Mueller: (11:59) and then heroin

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (11:59) Hello. I will be in adobe only with no audio. I will post my questions here if it need to be.

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:00) Thanks Eduardo! noted!

  Mary Uduma: (12:00) Hello Everyone

  jorge cancio (GAC - Switzerland): (12:01) hi everyone

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (12:01) Evening

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (12:01) hello all

  Brenda Brewer: (12:01) Lise is on Audio only at this time

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:01) hi

  Jonathan Robinson: (12:01) Hello All. We'll commence very shortly

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:03) Ah, thanks Jonathan. I forgot roll call

  Staffan Jonson: (12:12) Hi all

  Staffan Jonson: (12:12) apologies for beeing late

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:15) Draft Final Proposal available on Wiki here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/DYHeBQ.

  Milton Mueller: (12:18) 102\

  Milton Mueller: (12:19) can we say 5?

  Avri Doria: (12:20) so we have decided on the insider board?

  Holly Gregory: (12:21) Jonathan, we at Sidley did not see the email exchange.  sounds good to us though

  Holly Gregory: (12:22) sounds right. and ICANN directors would be independent

  Matthew Shears: (12:22) I support two independent directors

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (12:23) Sorry for being late - kids and football :)

  Holly Gregory: (12:24) I would view them as independent

  Milton Mueller: (12:26) exactly

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:28) I would support selection through the NomCom.

  Lise Fuhr: (12:29) Hi I am in Adobe now

  Avri Doria: (12:29) Donna, me too

  Milton Mueller: (12:29) I could support Nomcom selection as long as there was a specification that the two independents were one from protocls and one from numbers communities

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:29) Should we add 'or designee' to "the ICANN Executive responsible for PTI, ICANN CTO, IANA Managing Director, and two additional directors"?

  Holly Gregory: (12:30) I'm concerned about complexity of this board that is supervising a small group of people

  Avri Doria: (12:30) i do not support that Milton.  they get liasions if they want them. andare on the nomcom

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:30) I don't support addition of liaisons to the PTI Board

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:30) Donna + 1

  Milton Mueller: (12:30) then you might get two registry reps

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:30) NomCom could certainly function in this roll to select Independent Directors

  Staffan Jonson: (12:30) Please let's not open board further. CSC has liasons already

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:30) there are other ways of ensuring communications

  Sivasubramanian M: (12:31) @ Greg  If you are proposing non-voting liaisons to the PTI Board who would not alter the math, why not include the concerned customers as Observers ? This would obviate, and at the same time satisfy those who demand a CSC

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:31) I suggest specifically liaisons from the other operational communities, not a wide-open board.

  Matthew Shears: (12:31) agree that we should nto increase the size of board

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:31) Boards don't have observers.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:31) in my experience.

  Alan Greenberg: (12:32) Unless we forbid it, the Board itself could create lisison positions if it felt the need.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:32) ybup

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:32) @Milton:  agree that we need to avoid just keep adding people to what should be a small and focussed Board

  Matthew Shears: (12:33) agree - minority shoud be independent

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (12:33) +1 Alan

  Staffan Jonson: (12:33) +1 Jonathan and Alan

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:34) This was a specific suggestion to engage the other operational communities in lieu of giving them the two independent  board seats.  If we are not going to specifry how we arrive at the independent board members, I'd rather not  open the gate.

  Holly Gregory: (12:34) agreed Jonathan, elegant outcome

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:34) specifry = specify.

  Mary Uduma: (12:34) Bad Audio, breaking.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:34) I am happy with the elegant solution....

  Milton Mueller: (12:34) Specifried chicken

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:35) @Jonathan:  sounds elegant

  Robert Guerra: (12:35) Would suggest that if Nomcom is being suggested - then the nomcom should be able to comment if they would like to add the task to their list.

  Avri Doria: (12:35) recomend the nomcom

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:35) If we don't tie the hands, who makes that decision?

  Milton Mueller: (12:35) no - not so specific as Nomcom

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:36) Not necessarily the NomCom.

  Robert Guerra: (12:36) prefer a vaguer reference to - an appropiate process

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:36) We keep adding new layers, why not use what has actually worked well to date. Lets use NomCom.

  Kurt Pritz: (12:36) I have a different issue: The new paragraph states that the Board role is to ensure that IANA meets the SLEs. Does that mean that IANA takes its day-to-day direction from the PTI Board and not from ICANN operations? In that case, if IANA performance degrades, it is for the Board to take corrective action - and ICANN is not charged with bringing IANA back into compliance. This means ICANN cannot ensure IANA performance. Is that correct? Sorry for the lack of understanding on this.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:36) Main concern I'd have is all the pressure from every commuity to have their person in

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:36) agree @avri/alan

  Robert Guerra: (12:37) the nomcom is undergoing a review and likely revision. So we need to take that into consideration.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:37) I think the NomCom makes sense.  The NomCom fills seats all over ICANN.  I'm sure they can deal with any pressure/lobbying.

  Matthew Shears: (12:37) it is better i we specifiy now - so support nomcom

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:37) NomCom review/revision should take this intor account.

  Milton Mueller: (12:37) Kurt: ICANN appoints IANA managing director, and an Exec in charge.

  Robert Guerra: (12:37) if anything - Nomcom should be asked for its comment on this, aspect.

  Avri Doria: (12:37) Robery everything is alwasy undergoing review peridically.  that is part of the accountabilty structure.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:38) could accept nomcom but I think we could say what qualities we want

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (12:38) correct Jonathan

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:38) ok

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:39) A fuzzy nomcom would be fine.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:39) and a partridge in a pear tree.

  Milton Mueller: (12:40) Alan: presumably ICANN decides who the Managing Dir is

  Milton Mueller: (12:40) which means it is an insider appointment

  Kurt Pritz: (12:40) @ Milton: Perhaps then, this document should not hold the Board responsible for meeting SLEs; what if the Board and ICANN management have different ideas on managing?/

  Milton Mueller: (12:41) Then ICANN management removes its board appointments and puts in people who do what it wants. I really don't get your point Kurt

  Kurt Pritz: (12:41) II.A.I.b. PTI BOard

  Milton Mueller: (12:41) Oh, sorry, I misunderstood your point

  Milton Mueller: (12:42) I wasn conflating board and managment of ICANN

  Kurt Pritz: (12:42) It seems like there is a conflict between ICANN or the PTI Board being responsible

  Milton Mueller: (12:42) No

  Milton Mueller: (12:44) can't see para 98

  Kurt Pritz: (12:44) Who trumps if ICANN wants to fire the IANA Exec Dir and the PTI wants to keep the Exec Dir and take different corrective action?

  Milton Mueller: (12:45) ICANN

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:45) II should read III

  Milton Mueller: (12:45) although to trump it would have to replace its PTI board members

  Kurt Pritz: (12:45) I think it is ICANN too (but just black and white ICANN); I think that should be made clear

  Milton Mueller: (12:46) Alan: yes, we need to fix that

  Milton Mueller: (12:46) delete "naming"

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:46) Agree

  Matthew Shears: (12:46) + 1

  Milton Mueller: (12:46) Kurt: it is clear from the fact that it is an insider board

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:47) PTI Board are responsible for deliverig on SLEs.  If they fail, the parent co would reasonably sack them and put in a more effective Board level management

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:48) Pardon the analogy....

  Milton Mueller: (12:48) yes, Martin. The relationship is indirect, Kurt but it is supposed to be

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:49) Nobody wants to touch the SoW....

  Grace Abuhamad: (12:51) Martin's text: “However, the review mandate is strictly limited to evaluation against the SOW and does not include any policy or contracting issues that are not part of the IANA functions operation contract.  In particular it does not include issues related to policy development and adoption processes, or evaluation or contract enforcement measures between contracted TLDs and ICANN.”

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (12:52) Support Martin's suggested text addition.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:53) good point Milton

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:54) Can we look to making a specific reference to iana funtions operation performance?

  Donna Austin, RySG: (12:54) The CSC Charter has provision to review and amend SLEs

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (12:55) ie allowing review of the sow.  The review though has to judge against a baseline - and that is the sow of the time

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (12:56) The review of operations would be against the current SoW.  The review and potential revision of the SoW would be against operations and innovations that make the current SoW outdated.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:01) I have the same recollection as Avri.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:03) good point @avri

  Milton Mueller: (13:03) it is not a prohibition of discussion of relationship between policy and implementation, but a prohibition on re-litigating policy differences

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:03) Ok thanks Jonathan

  Avri Doria: (13:04) right we have a doc for DT SR

  Milton Mueller: (13:05) An RFP is looking for a replacement for PTI. A divestiture, as I understand it, would be about spinning off PTI

  Milton Mueller: (13:05) A replacement of PTI could result in its liquidation

  Avri Doria: (13:06) no necessarily

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:06) i think chuck is right

  Avri Doria: (13:06) spinning a subsidiary out is not an RFP

  Milton Mueller: (13:07) agree, Avri

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (13:07) @Chuck, RFP would be solution to identify a new IFO, though PTI could still participate in the PTI. 

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:07) I think we should strive to make this really clear as it is an area that I expect NTIA will pay close attention to.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:07) isn't that internal improvement?

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:07) Agree Chuck

  Milton Mueller: (13:07) Josh, did you mean "PTI could still participate in RFP?"

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:08) Avri could you provide the edit for paragraph 113? With Chuck?

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (13:08) An RFP will look into a new company to perform the  IFO. In other words, no longer an afilliate

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (13:08) @Chuck, another "separation" could be to maintain PTI, but make it a more independent entity through governance changes.  That would not necessarily require an RFP.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (13:08) THat is my undersatnding

  Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): (13:09) [Correction] ...participate in the RFP

  Avri Doria: (13:09) and there may be some thrird process that we determine at a later time.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:09) I'm not sure divestiture of PTI as Alan described in the first instance would not happen under a Separation Review.

  Avri Doria: (13:09) assumed it restarted clock

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:10) +1 Alan

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:11) Yes,  - we should more on the regular review

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:11) DT-M's recommendations will be sent to the CWG list early tomorrow.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:11) Its a central question for the GAC

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:13) @ Martin:  Policy implementation cannot completely be separated from policy development.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:14) @ Avri:  clarifications like you are talking about would helpf a lot.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:16) indeed

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:16) My apologies if this is covered somewhere, is it possible to define what is meant by 'separation'. Is it separation of the IANA Function from ICANN, is it separation of the PTI from ICANN. This might help.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:17) @Chuck:  perhaps.  But we need to avoid engaing on ICANN policy and TLD contract processes in the IFO evaluation

  Avri Doria: (13:18) please include it in action items so i am reminded. 

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:19) @Donna:  I am getting confused, too.  I still do not really see why we would be looking to transfer the PTI

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:19) Again, - +1 Alan

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (13:19) Agree Martin.  Just have to be careful about wording.

  Lise Fuhr: (13:19) @Martin you can help Chuck and Avri do the clarification

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:19) If the PTI fails, it loses the contract which is rebid.  Separation is the IFO

  Avri Doria: (13:20) and one could argue that in any particlar country not all stakeholders are included in the ccTLD even thogh 1591 requires it  the point is the two naming SOs are sponsible for naming functions and thius should be enough to raise the alarm that intiaiates a SIFR that includes all stakeholders.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:27) and Avri

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:28) It's pink, so it must be medium-rare...

  Holly Gregory: (13:29) +1 @Grace:  Sidley was wondering how to capture remains punch list items

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:29) @Jonathan - agree

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:31) good call... thanks ever I

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (13:31) should read re 4

  Milton Mueller: (13:35) Yep

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:35) well - the policy will stay within ICANN ...

  Alan Greenberg: (13:35) Chuck, please spell the 2nd word. Sterard and ??

  Alan Greenberg: (13:35) Steward

  Avri Doria: (13:35) ICANN is the stwward for names no matter what.  it could cease to be the IFO after a SGWG and RFP.  but even then it would still be the steward.

  Avri Doria: (13:36) ... after a SCWG ...

  Avri Doria: (13:36) No way to take Stewardship away from ICANN.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:36) I think that's what I understand Greg

  Milton Mueller: (13:36) Greg is authoritative

  Milton Mueller: (13:36) :-)

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:37) yes, I agree Greg -

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:37) In the event PTI is replaced by a third party entity as a result of the RFP, do all peripheral mechanisms stay in place, ie CSC and IFRTs?

  Avri Doria: (13:37) donna, that is my assumption

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:37) If yes, this should be made explicit and not assumed.

  Matthew Shears: (13:37) Donna - they should

  Kurt Pritz: (13:37) The difficult thing with the assumption that ICANN holds the contract is that, if IANA is failing it is probably indicative of  some very significant problems at ICANN also so there should be some flexibility in who holds the agreement going forward; ICANN should be the default

  Avri Doria: (13:38) SCWG only affects the the IFO.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:38) Agreed Kurt,

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:38) Yes, they should - its the communety power we are talking about

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:38) @Donna:  yes.  If we get confused, thik of those who haven't sat through all these calls!

  Avri Doria: (13:38) anthing else needs to be changed in bylaws and using bylaws change process.

  Avri Doria: (13:39) i think sitting though these calls is why we are more confused.  we got down all the rat holes.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:40) Don't fear the bankruptcy per se.  Only the worst-case bankruptcy.  Bankruptcy attorneys prefer to be surgeons, rather than coroners.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:41) Also, as Jonathan alluded to, PTI would probably be a "bankruptcy-remote" entity (i.e., structurally and operationally prevented from going bankrupt as much as possible).

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:41) couldn't registry fees be directed to the IFO in this case?

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:42) The point that PTI is only an affiliate and not a legal subsidiary is helpful from a bankruptcy perspective as well.

  Staffan Jonson: (13:42) Martin: It use to be

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:42) The RySG/RrSG did request segratation of funds, but I thought we received pushback on this earlier.

  Avri Doria: (13:43) Donna, there is a difference between funds in reserve for opperations, versus surrgery on how the ICANN budget is proepared.

  Alan Greenberg: (13:43) If the Stewardship is deemed to be an asset in a true bankcrupcy, The mind boggles as to what biddres would offer for that asset, and who the bidders would be.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:44) @Avri, you still need to understand the costs to be able to put the funds aside

  Alan Greenberg: (13:44) @Holly, bankcrupcy of not-for-profits may be unusualy, but attracting the kinds of lawsuits that ICANN can is also unsuual.

  Avri Doria: (13:44) Donna, i never said we did not need to understand the costs.  what we don't need to determine is how ICANN allocates the momey, just that it does.

  Avri Doria: (13:46) we can use the ICANN budget process to make all of our allocation arguments.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:46) i think we need we need to address these issues in the report, particularly the potential impact on security and stability of the DNS.

  Milton Mueller: (13:48) CWG might be renamed Design Team oohhhhhh

  Avri Doria: (13:48) i agree we need to insudre the funding for the PTI.  that affect stabilty &c.  whether that momney is allocated directly from Registry fees or from the general budget is not  an issue of  DNS.

  Avri Doria: (13:48) .. of DNS stabilty.

  Avri Doria: (13:48) i know, think of the children

  Donna Austin, RySG: (13:49) @Avri, I was more speaking to the Separation issue as a whole, and agree funding is part of that.

  Avri Doria: (13:49) what does RIing fence funding mean?

  Milton Mueller: (13:49) ring-fenced funding. not to be confused with ring-tailed lemurs

  Avri Doria: (13:50) ok, thanks

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:52) We will get to webinars in Item #7.b.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:54) are you talking about a process to map CWG /CCWG in the end -

  Matthew Shears: (13:55) the dependecies should be mapped

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:55) yes

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:55) the dependencies are mapped across both proposals

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:56) We need to look into this when CCWG has delivered

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:57) yes - but who is to deside if they fit - that my point

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:57) well - lets go on - its just a reminder

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (13:58) I assume the CWG's input would also be valuable at that point in the process.

  Jonathan Robinson: (13:59) @Greg. Goof point. Do we reconvene for that purpose?

  Jonathan Robinson: (13:59) Goff = Good!

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (13:59) +1 Greg - we will probably have to explain more on what we have been thinking through these calls

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:00) neèd to move to the CCWG call now bye

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (14:00) Jonathan -- when do you assume we will be "unconvening"?

  Jonathan Robinson: (14:01) @Greg. Equally good point.

  Holly Gregory: (14:01) I need to sign off for the CCWG meeting .  great pr

  Holly Gregory: (14:01) great progress .  congrats to all

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (14:01) I assume we need to stick together for dialogue with the ICG, NTIA, Congress, etc.  No rest for the weary.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (14:03) Is it possible to get a list of all sessions that are CWG related and we should attend.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (14:03) Also moving over to the CCWG....

  Elise Lindeberg GAC: (14:04) thanks Grace

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (14:05) ok:  thanks, that's helpful Grace

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (14:06) And what's better that 2 hours on IANA Stewardship?  4 hours, of course

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:06) Exactly how I plann to spend my Thursday :) and then 4 hours of Public Forum !

  Nathalie Coupet: (14:08) Bye

  Lise Fuhr: (14:08) Thank you all, good bye

  Allan MacGillivray: (14:08) Thanks everyone.

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (14:08) Bye

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC): (14:08) Adios

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (14:08) see you there, Grace!

  Staffan Jonson: (14:08) Thank You all bye

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:08) bye all

  Mary Uduma: (14:08) Thanks All