Attendees:
Sub-Group Members: Alan Greenberg, Alice Jansen, Alissa Cooper, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Elise Lindeberg, Graeme Bunton, Greg Shatan, Guru Acharya, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jiankang Yao, Kurt Pritz, Lars Erik Forsberg, Maarten Simon, Martin Boyle, Mary Uduma, Matthew Shears, Milton Mueller, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Robert Guerra, Seun Ojedeji, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Staffan Jonson, Stephanie Duchesneau, Steve Crocker, Wanawit Ahkuputra, Yasuichi Kitamura
Staff: Bart Boswinkel, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Marika Konings, Theresa Swinehart
Apologies:
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Agenda:
7 January 2015
1. Welcome and roll call
2. Reveiw of draft Survey
3 Review of CSS Structural Analysis
4. AOB
1. Welcome and Roll call
Call starts 14.05
No participants only on phone bridge
2. Review of draft Survey
- Re-confirm, survey is NOT a formal poll, NOR substitute for full review of public comments. purpose is to sense of membership of CWG on different views expressed in public
comment.
- General question: if one does not support creation Contract Co , how should one respond. Response: If disagree with creation, answer will NOT be taken as affirmative in any way in broader discussion. See also email list. Goal is to sense reaction of membership of CWG on ALL statement, independent of view, whether contract co will emerge from discussion
- Purpose of this session is to do life-editing.second survey
- Introduction is same to provide context to respondent
- Instructions for respondents . Largely the same. Instruction # 5 is new, instruction around providing additional comments. No comments from attendants
- Section CWG Proposal on Contract Co and IAP. taken verbatim from proposal> No comments
Statements around Contract Co
- Question: are statements on ICANN internal solution? No.
Statement 1: Comment: membership corporation does not by necessity mean membership is determining factor: Change of statement . a corporation where membership selects the Board and approves major decision
Statement 2: No Comments
Statement 3: comment: seems to change CWG proposal. Questions are based on public comments. Statement taken from Public comment. If agreed and
Contract Co adopted, would have a significant impact. However can and will not be done on basis of survey.
Statement 4: Mutual exclusive statement 3. Discussion around the survey, no changes to statement itself
Statement 5: Comment: is Contract Co by definition incorporated? Some ideas it could be an unincorporated association. Background of statement to ensure
against personal liability. Deleted
Statement 6:No comments
Statement 7: Add IETF, Comment: option existing institution is interesting, but including specific institution not very helpful( include example in brackets, and defer to comment box to enumerate example preferred. Change: delete listing of institution and defer to comment box.
Comment Do statement 8 and 9 overlap? Comment withdrawn
Statement 8: No comments
Statement 9: Comment, also include "clear". Response narrowly implies clear, however adding provides more clarity. Clear included
Statement 10: Concern, by including the brackets, it may override the perception of internal capture. proposal to delete language in parenthesis as statement 11 overlaps. change included, Additional include invite to comments how to avoid capture.
Statement 11: comments. Is nationalization a concern. Some countries a more prone then others to nationalize. Change to make parallel to nationalization is particular concern/risk for Contract Co.
Statement 12: No comment
Add Statement 13: Contract Co should be Swiis non-for profit. Comment.this assumes jurisdiction isprefred one outside US.
Add Statement 14: not-for-profit other jurisdiction (indicate preferred jurisdiction) Comment add " a jurisdiction other then US or Switzerland. Switzerland included because
raised in public comment
RFP topic
Statement 15: Comment, combines two ideas. Response, was language as raised in public comment. Split statement 15. Include new Statement 16. Statement 15, restated. Proposal change security and stability into operational stability
Statement 16 (new): no comment was suggested new
Statement 17: Proposal to remove 17. commented it is useful. question allows respondent to indicate how long between RFP on objective decisions (refers to discussion
on the list as well) Statement 17 maintained.
Statement 18: Taken from Public comment. Comment: not logical/in line with with reason it is set-up. it will be Authrority Co. Add language responsible for ensuring.
Statement 19: No comments
Statement 20: No Comments
Statement 21: No Comments
Statement 22: Comments Strike part of Statement. Add words" serious and"
Statement 23: No Changes
Statement 24: No changes
Statement 25: add language (i.e. as in CWG draft proposal. In support of Contract Co notion, not in support of CWG proposal, Removed
General Suggestion move general Statements to appear before Contract Co questions
Statement 26: Editorial changes
Statement 27: no changes
Statement 28: Comment : difficult to understand due to double negatives. Understanding is this is opposite of 27. Change wording i affirmative statement.
Statement 29:
Statement 30: Statement 30 is stronger version by using adjective "excessively" -> too complex, costly and risky
Statement 31:
In interest of allowing additional input in particular on Sections only ICANN Internal only option and IAP, additional edits to provided until 17.00 UTC.
Survey to CWG to be issued as soon as possible after the 17.00 UTC, Please respond asap , to assist group during "Intense week-end"
All: please fill in first survey CSC?MRT poll
Full WG call: 11 UTC 8
Action Items
ACTION: Survey to CWG to be issued as soon as possible after the 17.00 UTC, Please respond asap , to assist group during "Intense week-end"
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p74c1oo0q5k/
The audio recording is available here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/o2mk176w0ydio4go97lo.mp3
Documents Presented
FINAL IANACWGSurveyQuestionsforContractCoandIAP - 7 January 2014.docx
Chat Transcript
Marika Konings:Welcome to the RFP3 Meeting of 7 January 2014
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Hi all!
Alan Greenberg:Hell all
Alan Greenberg:Oops- HellO
Staffan Jonson:Hi all
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Hello
Greg Shatan:Good morning, afternoon and evening, all.
Steve Crocker:Hello, everyone
mary Uduma:Hello Everyone
Alan Greenberg:Greg very garbled.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Greg's not breaking up in my audio
Staffan Jonson:Yes better!
Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):yes
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:I usually have a good line but you did seem a little far
mary Uduma:Clear from my end
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:but you're not garbled here at all
Marika Konings:sounds good on this side - Alan, maybe it is your line?
Marika Konings:Live editing does not allow scroll control
Alan Greenberg:@Marika, you were crystal clear, but will redial.
Alan Greenberg:Back and much better. SOrry for the interruption.
Sivasubramanian M:Is this survey specific to an Internal ICANN solution? @ Greg
Marika Konings:sorry about the 'but' ;-)
mary Uduma:+1 Olivier
Seun Ojedeji:Hello everyone
CW:I think there should be a 'question préalable' as wo whether we need Contract Co. and MRT atall. CW
Milton Mueller:Greg can you explain a bit better what the implications of being the "members" vs. "the board" would be?
Donna Austin, RySG:or explain what is meant by membership corporation?
mary Uduma:Can there be statements like "Contract Co is desireable"?
Milton Mueller:I thought these were survey questions, Alan, not proposals
Seun Ojedeji:i am not sure olivier's question has been answered...? does Greg mean that one should respond with a no?
Sivasubramanian M:The survey could be organized into two distinctily separate sections - one section on what could be classified as "new structures" and the second section as "internal to icann" section, for clarity
Sivasubramanian M:Seun, I answered the first survey and I also found it difficult to determine whether or not I should answer questions following a primary question for which the answer was no
Alan Greenberg:As a follow-on comment, in reality, functionally, it might be very hard to distinguish the MRT being the Board from one where the Board are slaves to the desires of the MRT. It just adds a level of communications and possible problems. But if it works as designed, it is effectively the same.
Robert Guerra:Might it be worthwhile to include a question - to ascertain which options might require legal advice to see if indeed it is possible.
Seun Ojedeji:okay thanks @Greg...that is clear enough
Robert Guerra:furhter to my comment - we might want to add questions to ascertain if legal opinion assessing the viability of a certian option is needed before proceeding
Milton Mueller:Greg, is it possible for Contract Co to not have a board or members?
Alan Greenberg:These questions are helpful. A Contract Co where it has members who are largely the MS parts of ICANN becomes sort of indistinguisable from an ICANN where the Board is answerable to its MSs.
mary Uduma:Can you hear me?
Seun Ojedeji:One more thing though...are we still calling the survey a "draft" when it has been published for responses?
Marika Konings:@ Mary - we cannot hear you Let me know if you would like a dial-out.
Marika Konings:@Seun - this survey has not been published yet for responses.
Seun Ojedeji:Oh...@Marika okay thanks for clarifying that....i thought what Jonathan sent was that we respond to the survey before end of thursday
Marika Konings:that is the other survey on the MRT.
Alan Greenberg:This survey has some great opportunities for strategic voting!
Milton Mueller:thnaks Greg
Milton Mueller:How many times have you answered this question, Greg? :-)
Milton Mueller:People who do not support Contract Co should answer questions supporting options that they think will minimize any harm or damage done by its creation
mary Uduma:@ Milton this is an indication that there are issues with this survey
CW:Who drafted this second survey? Insofar as the first survey was drafted by Verisign (see "Properties".) - ?
Sivasubramanian M:@ Greg Why not remove the overlapping sections altogether?
Milton Mueller:Mary: No, I think it offers us an opportunity to explore how to change the proposal in ways that make it more acceptable/better
Milton Mueller:E.g., if there are questions related to an internal solution, which I oppose, I would answer them in ways that minimize the damage done by an internal solution
CW:Shadow ICANN? Then where is the advice from GAC? I expect that this will be percieved as an 'manip' to extract IANA from any external oversight.
Milton Mueller:Dear CW: Advice from GAC relates to policy, not implementation.
Milton Mueller:I have no sound, so my comment comes here
CW:MM I have already commented on that aspect.
Milton Mueller:Do we need this question? Isn't a Co by definition incorporated?
Milton Mueller:I raised my hand to ask about Q5
CW:Not Charlie Web. CW
Milton Mueller:Alan is right that people can respond strategically to the survey. However, they can also do everything else this CWG does strategically. For example, threatening to block consensus if they don't get their way....
Milton Mueller:I am on record as favoring deleting it
Seun Ojedeji:contract co needs to be incoporated one way or the other so it makes sense deleting item 5
Guru Acharya:@Alan: Im not able to understand the meaning of strategic voting here. Are you referring to gaming of the survey results using unethical answering strategies; or that the survey questions are framed in manner that is pre-determining the outcome?
Sivasubramanian M:Milton, it is a good idea to ask participants to assume that a ContractCo will be created so as it gather opinions to alter components to minimize unacceptability. But at the same time, the ContractCo centric surveys appear to push the idea, persist with the idea, without waiting for consensus on the very idea of creatiion of a ContractCo @ Milton, Steering towards a particular consensus is equally bad as Blocking consensus.
Milton Mueller:Add a question 13 (lucky number!) about whether Contract Co should be a Geneva nonprofit
Milton Mueller:Geneva NY? ;-) No. Switzerland
Milton Mueller:I promise I won't capture it
Milton Mueller:yikes
Seun Ojedeji:my previous statement on 5 is still applicable for 6 but with the edit: whether contract co should be incorporated in a free economy like Switzerland
Milton Mueller:well it would help id there were other examples than ISOC
Guru Acharya:@Milton: Im curious. Why yikes?
Robert Guerra:redcross?
Milton Mueller:Google? ;-)
matthew shears:IEEE, ACM?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:#7 how about ITU?
Alan Greenberg:@guru. I di not think the unethical is a proper word to use. That presumes a value judgement. Stratregic or tactical voting is picking not your "best" choice but one that will lead to a result that you favour. A simple example is if you have two votes in an election, using only one of them for the candidate you support to the 2nd vote does nnot help anyone else.
Sivasubramanian M:Great idea Olivier
Seun Ojedeji:sorry are you keeping 6? if 13 is already there then i think there is not need to keep 6. Also if item 7 is positive then most other questions will not be applicable
Guru Acharya:@Alan: Understood.
Milton Mueller:@Guru: too complicated for here, but there is already substantial overlap between ISOC and ICANN and if you want an independent entity ISOC is probably not the right choice
Milton Mueller:I like Martin's wording better
Guru Acharya:@Milton: Ah. so youre not against an existing entity per se. You have issues with ISOC in specific.
Seun Ojedeji:so i will suggest puting question 7 as first question that then determine what questiongets displayed further
CW:Leaving the call. Apologies. CW
Milton Mueller:QGuru Right, if asomeone came up with an interesting example...
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:works for me
Guru Acharya:@Martin: Good suggestion/
matthew shears:Q7 - in the comment section you could ask for illustrative examples
Seun Ojedeji:perhaps ....another juridication.... *other than U.S*...... be included
Seun Ojedeji:re: item 14
Milton Mueller:Questions 8 and 9 seem to overlap to me
Sivasubramanian M:@ Greg As it progresses this way, I am beginning to be a little open to the idea, considering Switzerland, or another jurisdiction, light-weight, isoc/ietf/iab ... If there is an INFALLIBLE way by which such a light structure could be created completely free of the threat of capture, then it might be "acceptable" but even this idea, if it were to have the risk of creating destructive imbalances, then it is better to think of an internal to icann solution
Marika 2nd screen:sorry, Adobe crashed. Will be right back.
Milton Mueller:Questions 8 and 9 seem to overlap do we need both?
mary Uduma:Nothing showing on the screen
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Milton: I think they are different and important points
Milton Mueller:Explain how, please
Milton Mueller:OK, objection withdrawn
Milton Mueller:heh
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Happy with Greg's explanation
Milton Mueller:yes, your honor
Milton Mueller:I wonder who will say no to this question
Staffan Jonson:7: To My understanding IETF is merely a “work process”, and ISOC is the institutional and legal home for IETF. This is a good example. Similar, 7b could be formulated: “Contract Co. could be hosted in an existing institution…”
matthew shears:yes - Q10 should be on capture generally; Q 11 on naitonal government capture
Milton Mueller:How does this question help us design a solution?
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Greg: works for me
Milton Mueller:Asking the capture question independently of an design features i not helpful
Milton Mueller:Nationalization question is good - we can consider how to avoid it by choice of jurisdiction. But "capture" in the abstract? One could argue that "capture" is a serious concern for ICANN, or for an internal solution, etc
matthew shears:perhaps add in parens that suggestions as to how to prevent capture are welcomed
Milton Mueller:If the opponents of Contract Co. want to use the "capture" meme why not just have a question: do you completely oppose having a Contract Co under any circumstances?
Milton Mueller:I thought purpose of survey was to help us improve the proposal
Seun Ojedeji:question 13 & 14 seem to overlap, i think item 14 is fine but to indicte the juridiction referred to *....located in a non-US juridication* (although may not be necessary if 14 comes immediately after 12)
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Milton: capture is a potential risk for any structure. Ignoring it is not a matter of supporting the proposal and including it does not mean knocking the CoCo
Sivasubramanian M:Capture is a serios concern, but it could be discussed under a broader term, "Risk of harmful changes" a) occuring because of capture b) even without a calculated design of capture, the new structure functions either incompetently or on a path that unintentionally alters (drastically) the way Numbers work
Alan Greenberg:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization - good list
Milton Mueller:US regulates, it does not nationalize
Sivasubramanian M:+1 Alan.
Robert Guerra:lots more questions to go through...
Milton Mueller:Alan can provide no examples of a "nationalization"
Milton Mueller:But of course, reguation should be as much of a concern as nationaliztion
mary Uduma:Is 11 not included already in 10?
Milton Mueller:Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were both federal-sponsored corps to begin with
Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Mary it seem it is ;)
Milton Mueller:I like the old wording of Q 11 better than the new one
Milton Mueller:we should say "nationalizing or regulating"
matthew shears:why don't we just add "including nationalization" to Q10
Milton Mueller:Well, I think concerns about nationalization and regulation should enter into choice of jurisdiction
Seun Ojedeji:i think we should avoid 13 if we can
Sivasubramanian M:Q: Is there a possibility of locating the ContractCo in a smaller country that would recognize the entiry as Global?
Milton Mueller:I view Swiss juris as less likely to reegulate on national securit grounds, for example, than US jurisdiction
Sivasubramanian M:Even a small princely state...
Milton Mueller:Q 15 combines two ideas that need to be separated. Whether RFPs are periodic is very different from whether IANA is removed from ICANN
Seun Ojedeji:okay thats fine
Milton Mueller:See my comment above
Staffan Jonson:11: I guess what many rather fear is Capture away from the MS model, indicating it would no longer give direct customers of IANA direct influence of the model, and thus a unilateral influene
Milton Mueller:Well I don't think RFPs themselves have ANY impact on security and stability
Milton Mueller:It's only when you change the provider
Guru Acharya:"The risks of " can be deleted
Seun Ojedeji:+1 @Guru
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):agree with guru
matthew shears:Why not just ask: Will issuing....
Milton Mueller:How can issuing an RFP have an impact on the security and stability of the root? We have done it for the past 10 years?
Guru Acharya:Keep N as the current term: 3+2+2
Milton Mueller:This question is crazy
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):i agree that
Alan Greenberg:Are we now using Yes.no answers, or a range??
matthew shears:agree - the issue isn't the RFP frequency as much as it might be the changing of operator
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):i agree that "N" should be clarified or there should be a specific question to get input about what respondents think would be a suitable "N"
Seun Ojedeji:not sure unmanageable is the right word in item 15 suggest it be removed
Guru Acharya:"The risks of " can be deleted
Milton Mueller:I strongly disagree with the revised Q15. There is no need to ask this question because no credible case can be made that issuing an RFP has bad impacts on security and stability. This is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question
Le-Marie Thompson:presuppositions in the question it self
Robert Guerra:Alan - As mentioned earlier, we are defaulting to same type of response as the CSC/MRT poll. No ALAC members of the CWG have yet completed the poll. Please do so. URL is - https://docs.google.com/a/privaterra.org/forms/d/14DoN2K1CooUGO4V11f-COoAX0N1s6evADFwPcy8QoK0/viewform
Milton Mueller:Alan, you mean what the NTIA has been doing for the past 15 years?
Guru Acharya:Issuing a periodic RFP
matthew shears:well - the contract with NTIA is 3 and then 2 extensions so perhaps N should be 3 - 7
Le-Marie Thompson:no, it's not reflective with what's there now
Sivasubramanian M:sorry instead of unmuting I prssed the red button
Sivasubramanian M:will wait for a call
Brenda Brewer:We are calling now
Brenda Brewer:Siva is back on phone line now
Alan Greenberg:The original PC was in response to suggestions that an RFP be issued regularly, regardless of performance, as often as evey 4 years.
Milton Mueller:HELLO, GREG: I dont think this Q should be asked at all
Robert Guerra:I would like to remind those who haven't taken the CSC/MRT poll yet to please do so. URL is - https://docs.google.com/a/privaterra.org/forms/d/14DoN2K1CooUGO4V11f-COoAX0N1s6evADFwPcy8QoK0/viewform
Sivasubramanian M:connected again
Robert Guerra:Close of poll is tomorrow.
mary Uduma:Why not 5-10? It does not have to foloow the NTIA pattern
Le-Marie Thompson:if it's in the public comments we are editing to another context
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):i think "operational stability" might be more accurate than "security and stability"
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):with respect to issuing an RFP (#15)
Robert Guerra:audio is fine..
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:No audio lost. Audio was fine all along
Marika Konings:We can all hear Alan - it may be your line again?
Milton Mueller:It is an ignorant question. Issuing an RFP has no impact on operations.
Robert Guerra:hasn't been interupted in last 5 min.
Guru Acharya:I think Siva was talking
Seun Ojedeji:+1 to stephanie that is useful edit
Guru Acharya:Versign? :O
Seun Ojedeji:@Milton, RFP process is not cheap, it requires a lot of resources. It also distracts the operator in a way
Seun Ojedeji:if everything is okay why issue RFP....RFP should be a triggered option (perhaps that can be included as a question)
Milton Mueller:Seun, you are ignoring the obvious fact that ICANN has been doing that for many years. Are you saying that its operation of the IANA functions has been "distracted" or "unstable?"
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):my comment was to #15
Milton Mueller:Seun, a "triggered" option is a cause of instability. It means that someone is seriously dissatisfied. All kinds of strategic behavior will occur if the RFP is not periodica and regular
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):i think "operational stability" captures what Seun described and security is somewhat moot if it is just issuing the RFP
Guru Acharya:Even the CRISP team went for a termed contract in the 8th call.
Milton Mueller:Sorry , I am addressing 17
Sivasubramanian M:15. Should ICANN be subjected to an RFP process every N number of years in order to continue to manage IANA functions? 15 a. Issuing an RFP every 3-7 years to ICANN could have an unmanageable ...
Sivasubramanian M:contd...
Milton Mueller:On Q 17, why not ask which periodic interval people prefer?
Robert Guerra:cut
matthew shears:Greg - rephrasing 15 to say a perioidic RFP rather than noting N years would be a better
Milton Mueller:I think we can cut it out
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):i also think there should be an open ended question
Staffan Jonson:OK to cut out
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I think it is useful
Sivasubramanian M:15 b Issuing an RFT every 3-7 years to the IANA Operator (technical contractor) could have an unmanageable.....
Sivasubramanian M:16. ( if reworded as above, Q 16 might appear repetitive, but still necessary)
Robert Guerra:if we don't have consensus to remove - keep it.
Seun Ojedeji:will leave AC soon but will stay on Audio....thanks
Steve Crocker:Q 18 asks if Contract Co's sole responsibility shopuld be to ensure that root zone changes are in compliance with prevailing policy. if you imagine the IANA function is performed by some group other than ICANN, this question is a bit odd. The policy decisions will still be made by ICANN.
Milton Mueller:in Q 18 we are asking Contract Co to authorize
Avri Doria:Steve, but what about the differrence between making policy and enforcing compliance with policy.
Steve Crocker:The IANA fucntion operator doesn't have a choice about implementing a change that comes through the official channel. If there is an issue with those decisons, you have to go upstream to where those decisions are made.
Milton Mueller:But why Contract Co.? Why not CSC or MRT?
matthew shears:+ 1 Milton
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):old hand
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Milton: why anyone!
Alan Greenberg:@Milton, Contract Co is the only entity with the authority to enforce.
Milton Mueller:And in the operational functions
Sivasubramanian M:19 should be seen as a no-option really
Alan Greenberg:18 does not say who does the mechnical work, but who ENSURES
Steve Crocker:The entire construct of Contract Co + CSC + MRT + IAP is focused on whether the IANA fucntion is executing its function accruately and and in a timely fashion. Any conerns about the decisons being made by the groups responsibile for the substantive decisions are outside of IANA.
Milton Mueller:@alan: authorization occurs many times routinely, contracting occurs periodically
Alan Greenberg:@Milton, if Contract Co is not ultimately responsible, who is?
Milton Mueller:This question duplicates 15-16
Sivasubramanian M:21 not only to Registry operators and customers
Sivasubramanian M:please reword it accordingly
Milton Mueller:Greg, see my comment too
Sivasubramanian M:"to ICANN and the Internet"
Milton Mueller:But we have already asked that
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):"or persistent"
Milton Mueller:We have already asked rhis question
Milton Mueller:how is it different from 15 16, and :"last resort"
Milton Mueller:the word trigger does not appear in 22
Milton Mueller:OK, so you should say "Transition should only be triggeerd by..."
Milton Mueller:No, 16, said that transition could be disruptive
Milton Mueller:no, last report was yet another question asking the same thing
Milton Mueller:You have 3 questions asking the same thing now: 16, "last resort" and 22
Milton Mueller:YES
Alan Greenberg:All good surveys replicate questions using different wording...
Milton Mueller:Because i do not have voice access you are not paying any attention to m comments
Alan Greenberg:It is oneo f the most annoying parts of many surveys!
Milton Mueller:delete "may be costly and disruptive"
Alan Greenberg:Fortunately there are olny 8 minutes left in this call.
Milton Mueller:Yes
Alan Greenberg:I am happy with that last edit
Sivasubramanian M:General Statements 23 a ContractCo should be created as a short lived, one time entity, for the purpose of transition only, stipulate contract conditions (call it a numbers AoC, name who will oversee the terms and wind up)
Robert Guerra:In terms of creating (or not) contract Co. Do we want to move it earlier in the survey - to the start of the contract co. questions?
Sivasubramanian M:We could still explore if it can be wound up, there might be a legal possibility
Robert Guerra:Do we want to have the general statement questions to appear before the COntrct Co. questions?
mary Uduma:+1@Robert
Sivasubramanian M:ContactCo could bring the ICANN-IANA arrangment into existence, name who will oversee the agreement, and for this purpose it is created. It would no longer oversee any thing else, so its purpose is served, and the rest of the responsibilities are passed on to whoever is named for the oversight. So there might be a legal possibility to create a short term entity
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:happy to move them up front
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):supportive of robert's suggested change
Sivasubramanian M:@ Greg I understand, it is just a comment in the chat..
Robert Guerra:milton - has his hand up
matthew shears:26 - does that assume 2 extensions and then what?
Milton Mueller:old hand
Milton Mueller:On 25, delete wording about CWG proposal
Milton Mueller:because people will assume that the CWG will only be as it was in there, without detail or modifications
Milton Mueller:People can support the idea of Contract Co, without precisely supporting CWG proposal
Stephanie Duchesneau (RySG/Neustar):i dont see the value of this question
matthew shears:28 - not sure I understand - shouldn't it read "is possible?"
Sivasubramanian M:Comment: I like 32
Milton Mueller:Q 27 should be worded thus: If you want separability, you must have a contract co
matthew shears:agree with Alan - 27 and 28 are confusing
Milton Mueller:In other words, I am agreeing with ALAn
Milton Mueller:GREG: see my proposed wording above
Bernard Turcotte - staff support:We are at 5 past the hour
matthew shears:agree with Steve re 29 and 30
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:This survery is starting to be too complex, costly and risky. :-)
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:survey :-)
Sivasubramanian M:Anthing as complicated as the IANA transtion process must end up with the most simplified solution imaginable.
Avri Doria:Olivier, it has been that for a while already.
matthew shears: 30 should come after 31 and "highly" in 31 should be removed
Alan Greenberg:This call is becoming too (fill in your own words)
Alan Greenberg:Some of us actually have other thigs to do with ourlives. I will not have the chance to klook at it or make comments.
matthew shears:when will this survey be issued?
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:lan 1
Robert Guerra:Please do comlete the CSC/MRT survey if you haven't done so already
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:*+Alan +1
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:could we do midday UTC Friday for the second survey?
Robert Guerra:Long URL is as follows for the CSC/MRT poll - https://docs.google.com/a/privaterra.org/forms/d/14DoN2K1CooUGO4V11f-COoAX0N1s6evADFwPcy8QoK0/viewform
Alan Greenberg:Delightful!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thanks all bye
Avri Doria:if you are trying to guage a SG views it is chalenging.
matthew shears:thanks all
Sivasubramanian M:bye
Maarten Simon, SIDN:bye
Avri Doria:bye
Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Thanks all, bye
Staffan Jonson:thanks all
Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Thanks everyone
Steve Crocker:Bye
Bart Boswinkel:Bye all
mary Uduma:Bye all
Greg Shatan:Goodbye, all, and thank you!
