Members:  Avri Doria, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Elise Lindeberg, Graeme Bunton, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Olivier Crepin-LeBlond, Paul Kane, Seun Ojedeji, Staffan Jonson  (13)

Participants:  Alan Greenberg, Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Sullivan, Carolina Aguerre, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Christopher Wilkinson, Chuck Gomes, Desiree Miloshevic, Gary Hunt, John Poole, Maarten Simon, Manal Ismail, Mark Carvell, Martin Boyle, Matthew Shears, Paul Szyndler, Peter Van Roste, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Stephanie Duchesneau, Suzanne Woolf, Tomohiro Fujisaki, Wale Bakare, Yasuichi Kitamura   (23)

Staff:  Bart Boswinkel, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad

Apologies:  Brenden Kuerbis

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Chuck Gomes on audio only

1. Opening Remarks

  • 22nd meeting -- wow!
  • 2 proposals have been submitted to ICG
  • Need to make (and be seen to make) progress towards a proposal  
  • Wednesday session at ICANN52 
  • Thursday session went into more substance 
  • Overall we committed to a refreshed approach
  • Meetings will be focused on committees of the whole as well as task forces meetings 
  • Measure your participation by joining two meetings per week if possible

2. Processing ICANN52

  • Staff has pulled feedback from transcripts. Meant as reference point for the work moving forward. 
  • Link to Google Doc is here:
  • Berry has taken the feedback doc one step further by focusing in on the Q&A session in an attempt to analyze feedback
  • Feedback will be accepted through the end of the week either via CWG member/participant or through staff (Grace). 
  • Yes, written responses should be added
  • Yes, reminders should be sent out
  • Extended deadline to 18:00 UTC on Monday 23 February
  • Input should be representative of members' organizations where possible (clarification otherwise)
  • Made the questions available for broad input (including SO/ACs). Views are not required per se, but welcome.

Action: members should send reminders to their communities (participants may do so as well). Note extended deadline to 18:00 UTC on Monday 23 February. Reference announcement: 

Action: Berry will make a full table of all the answers to questions after Monday

3. Work of Client Committee / Legal Advice

  • Another Client Committee call planned for tomorrow 
  • 6 firms on shortlist but at least one may drop off due to conflict of interest
  • Will need to discuss how to manage relationships between CWG, CCWG and ICANN
  • Greg has been participating in the CCWG legal group so that there is coordination and possibly a joint decision on a firm
  • Conflict of interest rules are standards ethics rules. Examples include a law firm that represents a counterparty to an 
  • ICANN suit. Most law firms have a specialist lawyer who determines conflict for the firm.
  • Will have advice by F2F, but perhaps not full fledged report. 

4. Work Methods

  • Objective is to make progress while waiting for legal advice
  • Task Forces should be small groups of qualified people (relevant expertise + time to commit)
  • Two options for task force "membership"
  • a)- allow non-CWG people to join but Task Forces should be lead by CWG participant/members (majority should be CWG)
  • b)- require joining as participant even though we recognize that they will not participate fully
  • Suggestion that non CWG submit SOIs for participation 
  • Willing to have calls twice per week (24 respondents -- 20 in favor and 4 against)
  • 2 calls per week in addition to any Task Force work

Action: Staff to look at rotating timezones for the calls (at the very least accommodating members) 

5. Task Forces/ Design Teams

  • Guidelines presented by Bernard Turcotte
  • These need to be manageable, small groups, that don't absorb all resources into one group. 
  • Use the word Design Team (IETF style) moving forward
  • Any given DT should be linked to the Proposal so that the relevance to the work is clear
  • Start with clean slate for proposed DTs
  • The ability to separate (worst case scenario) is not the sole subject of this proposal

Action: Bernie to do  comprehensive review of documents and to use new terminology (Design Teams)

Action: All to propose tightly specified DTs on CWG list and start to build those out with leads

6. Future Work

  • Meeting schedule was addressed earlier in the call. 
  • Timeline will be adjusted as we settle into DT work (no more RFP subgroup bars)
  • F2F dates were arranged around project plan -- 26-27 March

7. CCWG-Accountability

  • Chairs have coordination call on Friday

8. Review of Action Items 

Action: members should send reminders to their communities (participants may do so as well). Note extended deadline to 18:00 UTC on Monday 23 February. Reference announcement: 

Action: Berry will make a full table of all the answers to questions after Monday

Action: Staff to look at rotating timezones for the calls (at the very least accommodating members) Action: Bernie to do  comprehensive review of documents and to use new terminology (Design Teams)

Action: All to propose tightly specified DTs on CWG list and start to build those out with leads

Action: Bernie to produce backbone Proposal document

Action: Martin/Lise to finalize Principles document within next two weeks

9. AOB

  • F2F location has not yet been finalized
  • Avri raises "integrated model" and notes that comments are still open

Action Items

Action: members should send reminders to their communities (participants may do so as well). Note extended deadline to 18:00 UTC on Monday 23 February. Reference 


Action: Berry will make a full table of all the answers to questions after Monday 

Action: Staff to look at rotating timezones for the calls (at the very least accommodating members) 

Action: Bernie to do  comprehensive review of documents and to use new terminology (Design Teams)

Action: All to propose tightly specified DTs on CWG list and start to build those out with leads

Action: Bernie to produce backbone Proposal document

Action: Martin/Lise to finalize Principles document within next two weeks



Transcript CWG IANA #22 19 FEB.doc

Transcript CWG IANA #22 19 FEB.pdf


The Adobe Connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here:

Documents Presented





Draft list of CWG Task Forces 19 Feb 2015 (JR Edit).pdf

Guidelines for a CWG Task Force 19 Feb 2015 (JR Edit).pdf

Template for a CWG Task Force19Feb2015.pdf

WorkMethods 19 Feb 2015 (JR Edit).pdf

Chat Transcript

  Grace Abuhamad:Hi everyone -- welcome to the CWG-Stewardship meeting #22. The meeting will begin at 11:00 UTC. In the meantime, I've loaded the project plan for you. This was sent along with the agenda yesterday and will be discussed under item 6.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Hi all!

  Matthew Shears:morning

  Seun Ojedeji:Hi everyone

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC):Morning

  Jonathan Robinson:Hello All.

  Jonathan Robinson:Reminder to everyone - please mute while not contributing to audio

  Andrew Sullivan:Hi all.  I'm on but muted.

  Lise Fuhr:Hi all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Good morning

  Wale Bakare:Hi all. Morning

  Staffan Jonson:Hi all

  Avri Doria:it is not an NCSG prposal, though the 3 of us happen to be NCSG

  Avri Doria:i do think they might endorse it, but we are not there yet.

  Grace Abuhamad:Correct Jonathan, thank you for catching that.

  Grace Abuhamad:Link to Google Doc is here:

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thanks @grace, very useful...

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):@GRace: Thnak you for putting this doc together

  Grace Abuhamad:Also on Wiki

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:yes, Grace - very useful :)

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Yes, thanks:  useful to have it all in one place

  Grace Abuhamad:Berry's document is unsynced so that you can zoom in/out. This is just an example doc. Has not been circulated yet.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:e/cellent...Than

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:nks to you as well @berry

  Grace Abuhamad:Matthew Shears has submitted comments from CDT

  Matthew Shears:yes thanks Grace

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Re: responses, the ICANN meeting was very time-consuming hence perhaps not many responses now. Perhaps a reminder to be sent out? (I do not know how quickly this can be sent out)

  Carolina Aguerre:Agree with Olivier. Extending the period of comments until Wed. 25 for eg might be a good option. Many organizations representing collectives need more time.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:will written inputs be added to this analysis?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yes please @berry I think continuing this tabulation would be valuable

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:For the GAC this was provided as a discussion document for ICANN 52 and the session we had there...

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:That is - we will not have any written respons from the GAC as such

  Carolina Aguerre:In any case, thank you Jonathan for the extension. I believe it will  help get more feedback.

  Grace Abuhamad:That's a good point @elise

  Berry Cobb:Please send any additional input to the list and I will add them to the master document.  Use a subject"Singapore Thursday Session Input".  Thank you.

  Jonathan Robinson:Greg. You are a ittle muffled.

  Jonathan Robinson:little muffled.

  Grace Abuhamad:@Berry, I will fforward you CDT's input (from Matthew Shears)

  Andrew Sullivan:It seems to me that, if a single law firm isn't possible, then there is no possible way we will be able to deliver anything in time.  I think it's a hard requirement that it be the same firm

  Seun Ojedeji:@Greg you mentioned 6 has been short-listed and more may drop based on conflict. If i may ask, what factor determines conflict in this context?

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt:Forgive the negativity, and appreciate the care needed on choice of firm but the action to secure legal opinion seems to be moving forward painfully slowly.

  Seun Ojedeji:Okay thanks but i did like to mention that those items be properly documented somewhere and please again let us have a reference where we can follow the client commitee activities. It just feels like noting is going on but i am sure a lot is already happening and i say weldone for that.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Are we going to have some legal advise before the porposed F2F in March?

  Matthew Shears:it is essential that we have that advice by then

  Matthew Shears:many decisions are dependent upon it

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt:And ability to make recommendations within adminsitrations depend on the precision afforded by legal opinion.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt:well understood, Greg - many thanks. Need to keep moving forward.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:ok thanks Jonathan

  Avri Doria:personally while i think we need the advice to finalize decsions, dealing with some of the fuundamental differences in the solution space, there is no legal opinion that will decide the case for us.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Greg: thanks for the clarification

  Greg Shatan:Avri, yes, the legal advice is only an input.  They could well tell us that all of the proposals could work, either as is or with improvements/revisions developed with counsel.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Avri: but all of the proposals are strictily hinging on their viability relating to legal advice., both in improving them but also in whether the legal advice completely discounts  o rpartly discounts a particular proposal

  Paul Kane:I sincerely hope the "legal Advice" will be substantive and reference legal precedents so it can be authoritative rather than just an opinion.  Lawyers have many opinions :-)

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:When we focus on elements we have agreed on - lets finish the principles

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to @Paul on that. I think that should be a requirement when presenting report/response

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Paul +1

  Avri Doria:I am not clear how something like the Intergrate proposal fits into this work method.

  Avri Doria:.. like discussion on the Integrated model - or any other new models - ...

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:There are certainly resources within the Rr community that could help on that too

  Greg Shatan:We'll discuss this with counsel, but typically transaction advice doesn't cite to cases, thogh it does cite to the sections of the law being applied.  The first order of business for counsel is to give us "working advice" -- not writing long "authoritative" memoranda.

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC):Task Fprces can always consult with experts when they feel the need

  Greg Shatan:In the end we can get a deliverable, but we can't work with counsel based on deliverables.

  Donna Austin, RySG:On the SLA issue, I believe it is important that we be able to engage expertise outside this group.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:And can we extract (for example) SLAs from the existing contract as the base line

  Suzanne Woolf:+1 on actively seeking operational expertise

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Rather than starting from scratch

  Avri Doria:it does make sensew that SLAs are defined by operational folk who know what they are talking about in detail.

  Avri Doria:we all get to review and question, but they know what is needed.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:+1, Japp

  Avri Doria:Agree with Greg, the task forces do seem tree orieinted.

  Lise Fuhr:I think outside participants are ok but they need to submit a SOI (Statement of Interest)

  Avri Doria:Lise, of course.

  Avri Doria:we might consider following the CRISP work pattern.  af ew hours every other day. or something like that.

  Seun Ojedeji:Are we "for instance" presenting details of SLA to ICG or just indicating the priciples that the SLA would contain as a response to ICG. I would have thought the later is the main task while the former can be handled by a smaller group of expertise. However i think the principles should be drafted by the rfp group (represented by taskforces perhaps)

  Andrew Sullivan:If you want expert advice in operations, you might find that you can't get an external expert who is willing to file an SOI.

  Andrew Sullivan:So I hope that there wasn't an expectation that consulting with anyone automatically meant they had to file an SOI, or we're cutting off our potential pool of experts

  Andrew Sullivan:(they're different than participants, as Jaap noted.  I agree, just trying to be sure)

  Avri Doria:Andrew, why would hat be?  why would someone not wish to reveal the other impinging interests.

  Andrew Sullivan:They might have non-disclosure agreements that prevent such disclosure.  I know when consulting I had such agreements.

  Avri Doria:that even prohibit mentioning the relationship?

  Andrew Sullivan:Absolutely

  Andrew Sullivan:"Stealth" companies, for instance, almost _always_ write rules that you can't even mention their existence

  Avri Doria:then they should be able to state that in the SOI.

  Andrew Sullivan:that's part of the whole point.

  Suzanne Woolf:@Avri, happens all the time. I have no such agreements right now but have had and probably will have.

  Donna Austin, RySG:Jonathan: i think it depends on timing of the calls.

  Andrew Sullivan:I don't see how the SOI permits you to say, "I have a relationship I can't tell you about."  That's functionally the same as "didn't tell you"

  Avri Doria: i think it is ok for that to be stated in an SOI.  then we know there is stuff we don't know and we take the advise with that consideration in mind.

  Matthew Shears:re 2 meetings a week - do we have a choice given the amount of work we have to do and the proposed timeline?

  Avri Doria:there is a diffeence between not tell who a contract is for and not not revelaing that there are secrets.

  Andrew Sullivan:Avri, how is, "I have a relationship I won't tell you about," actionable?

  Avri Doria:al an SOI does, is tell the rest of us the context witin which we take the words one utters.

  Paul Kane:May I suggest the lead of the topic is a Member - who has the liberty to consult with experts to give input  on specific points.  Where there are multiple opinions, the SMALL taskforce reviews the submissions.  Then the whole group reviews the output of the Taskforce

  Avri Doria:sorry about the typos.

  Andrew Sullivan:Maybe the relationship is benign, maybe it's unrelated, maybe it's in conflict: you can't tell what interests there are.  So this gives you no context at al

  Avri Doria:ok, as you wish.

  Greg Shatan:Seun -- The final proposal that goes to NTIA will need to include completed SLA/contract/documentation.  The  proposal needs to be in "go live" form.

  Andrew Sullivan:BTW, one of the agreeements I once signed with an entity we are currently engaged with (I won't say which) explicitly barred me from mentioning it.

  Andrew Sullivan:So this is an issue in our community

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC):When I want to know somthing and ask Google, is then also an SOI needed?

  Paul Szyndler:Yes, Jonathan, I can support the idea of two calls a week. But +1 to what Donna said about timing AND, it also depends upon our collective ability to advance work between calls, in order to make each one worthwhile.

  Suzanne Woolf:Greg, the IETF and RIR proposals to the ICG aren't turnkey, and I thought there was earlier discussion of simplifying and streamlining?

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:I fully agree to consult with experts - but if we now start to exlude ourself from the CWG work we have a problem :)

  Greg Shatan:@Suzanne: I think that will be identified as a shortcoming of those two proposals.

  Alan Greenberg:Yes, 2 calls a week, presuming they ALL don't fall during sleeping hours.

  Greg Shatan:It's just common sense -- how can the current set-up end without a new set-up to take its place.

  Avri Doria:an SOI is only to give an indication of other _relevant_ interests.  while i would have thought indicating that there were relevant intersets one could not speak of was useful information, i will accept that you don't think so.  i still think that SOI are required for direct participation.  the other alternative is to bring in second hand advice. ie. " i talk to this super duper  consultant and they suggested A..B..C...

  Greg Shatan:+1 to Avri.

  Avri Doria:Greg, it could just end.  We dont favor that, but it could.

  Alan Greenberg:Presume 2/week is in ADDITION to any TF work. Correct?

  Greg Shatan:@Avri -- I'm confident it won't end without a new working solution.

  Greg Shatan:Alan -- yes :-)

  Jonathan Robinson:@Alan - yes that is my understanding

  Avri Doria:Greg, me too.  But it could.

  Greg Shatan:GNSO SOIs  are pretty vague -- not requiring listing individual clients, but more a discussion of the type of work/clients.

  Avri Doria:it is not unheard of in the annals of US inaction, for something that has long existed to just stop. 

  Andrew Sullivan:The reason I refused to join this group at the outset was that I was required to promise to go to every meeting as part of the SOI procedure, and I thought that absurd

  Andrew Sullivan:Finally, someone suggested to me to just put "won't make them all" in my SOI

  Greg Shatan:I am confident that won't happen this time, Avri,

  Andrew Sullivan:so I did, but that's sort of a ridiculous thing to do. 

  Avri Doria:Andrew, yeah, but it works.

  Avri Doria:that tells us what we need to know.

  Avri Doria:and if we care, we can probe further.

  Allan MacGillivray:@Greg +1 - I would see the outputs of the task forces as inputs to full CWG discussions, rather than 'approval'

  Avri Doria:chiars for example, can have private conversations and give us assurances.

  Allan MacGillivray:The task forces might for example, present various options to the full CWG for discussion.

  Matthew Shears:I am uncomfortable limiting the number of persons in a TF - who will determine who is in or not?

  Matthew Shears:+ 1 Allan

  Suzanne Woolf:@Matthew, seems to me that should be self-limiting-- if you're not eager to embrace the details on a particular topic, why not wait and be part of active review of the TF output?

  Greg Shatan:Allan, I was going to agree with you, but I saw you were agreeing with me.  :-)

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC):We could drop the word "task Force" and use the IETF style "Design Team"

  Lise Fuhr:Design team is fine

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:ok

  Greg Shatan:@Suzanne, another reason the work of the TF can't be a (too) finished product.

  Greg Shatan:Sorry. TF changed to Design Team during the typing of my comment.

  Avri Doria:one of the crucial points about IETF design teams as i understand them, is that the output of a DT is just a recommendation to be considered by the whole WG. It has no force of decision and has no priority over other work that may have been done outside that DT.

  Andrew Sullivan:If you cannot express this in 1 page, then IMO you don't have a tight enough topic and you need to split the topic into smaller bits

  Andrew Sullivan:And +1 to Avri

  Andrew Sullivan:More to the point: IETF DTs come back with something, and it had better be pretty good or the WG will throw it away

  Suzanne Woolf:@Avri, exactly. Lets a few people sit down and think intensely and hopefully clearly, but doesn't obligate anyone to laceppt the result.

  Andrew Sullivan:But everyone has an interest in getting moving, so generally people take the output

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Suzanne +1

  Paul Kane:I'd merge 1 and 2 as DNSSEC (DS Record) updates isa Key Function

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC):ARPA management is done under supervision of the IAB ifI remember correctly

  Suzanne Woolf:+1 Jaap I think that's right

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC):INT is a can of worms

  Paul Kane:Yes Jaap - .ARPA is under IAB

  Andrew Sullivan:So, we can just take arpa off the list!  PRogress!

  Paul Kane:The SLA will / should cover all transactional  service expectations

  Suzanne Woolf:IETF SLAs for IANA-- pointers at

  Greg Shatan:Sounds right to me.

  Suzanne Woolf:might be useful reading

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@PaulK yes

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Jonathan: I would say yes

  Allan MacGillivray:I think that there should be one SLA document.

  Lise Fuhr:SLA could benefit from having it's own design team

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Martin: I understand IANA developed the current SLAs as a result of a contract requirement

  Alan Greenberg:cannot hear paul

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Donna I think so. 

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Must be done in cooperation, not unilaterally

  Staffan Jonson:Louder please

  Greg Shatan:Paul, you are faint.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Paul:  much!

  Greg Shatan:This telephone thing is just a fad.

  Grace Abuhamad:We are trying to adjust Paul's line on audio side too

  Greg Shatan:May be helpful to put this up:

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Martin, I believe IANA called for input to SLAs, but didn't get much of a responses, althought I did hear that the ccNSO did contribute

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Donna:  so we start there?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:With what we have already

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Martin -- yes

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Donna:  good

  Donna Austin, RySG:

  John Poole:I object to "separation" as a Task Force (blocks 4 and 5 --I don't think you can separate IANA from ICANN

  Matthew Shears:agree that need to address escalation path as well as separation

  Matthew Shears:and different models under consideration deal with separation differently

  Paul Szyndler:From the experience of discussions in the ccNSO, I would note that we need to be very cautious with the use of the terms separability and separation

  John Poole:What you are trying to define is "material breach"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:agreed @paul

  Matthew Shears:+ 1 Jonathan

  Greg Shatan:Jonathan's point is critica.

  Greg Shatan:l

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Jonathan: I agree and that was certainly one of the messages from Larry Strickling in Singapore

  Greg Shatan:Sorry for jumping the agenda... :-)

  Seun Ojedeji:It may be good to determine what task should remain on the list, for instance i think the "NTIA authorization function" is something that the entire group needs to agree on whether its necessary to remain or not. There may be no need to develop a TF for that.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt:On schedulign and target dates, a widely available explanatory roadmap in support of the timline is very important I think. An observation on the geo-political context of the CWG's work, after talking to other govts at and after Singapore, is the direct linkage to the WSIS+10 review in the autumn, i.e.  progress with the IANA project will be a negotiating point in the UNGA. This is a reminder of the criticality for the future of ICANN of the CWG delivering in June (when by the way the two review co-facilitators who will steer and manage the review AND its outcome are appointed).

  Avri Doria:linking them is good.  both together conflict with IETF

  Matthew Shears:+ 1 Mark - very important

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:@Mark:  very important.  Need to keep in mind

  Greg Shatan:@Seun, the TF (or Design Team) will develop the discussion.  The full group will always be making the decisions.

  Seun Ojedeji:@Greg okay thats fine. Thanks

  Greg Shatan:There is a bridge day between the two.

  Andrew Sullivan:You all could meet in Dallas.  That's where the IETF will be :=;-)

  Avri Doria:i think meeting in Dallas the same week is a grand idea.

  Avri Doria:the idea of piggy backing on other meetings is a good idea.

  Greg Shatan:May need to find a cheaper hotel for the self-funded,  Not sure if there's a Motel 6 in Istanbul.

  Greg Shatan:I'm closer to Dallas than Istanbul, but tht's just me....

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC):So I end up on an IETF without time to go to it :-)

  Greg Shatan:We could go back to Singapore.

  Greg Shatan:London would be closer.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:for some greg not all

  Wale Bakare:+1, London

  Greg Shatan:We'll come to you, Cheryl!!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr::-) :-) :-)

  Greg Shatan:Not many good Australian restaurants in New York.

  Avri Doria:have we added simplicity as a principle.  (ducks)

  Greg Shatan:It's a gift to be simple....

  Seun Ojedeji:Is there a decision on venue yet?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:good meeting Jonathan! this was really needed.

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:thats because they were reffered  to at ICANN52 several times 

  Seun Ojedeji:i mean venue of the f2f?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:all good thanks...

  Avri Doria:when can we get to discuss the integrated proposal? do we get to?

  Avri Doria:in any case please rember that the doc is open for comments.

  Seun Ojedeji:Okay thanks Jonathan

  Matthew Shears:thanks for raising the model Avri - comments are very welcome!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:OK bye all ... thanks everyone...

  Seun Ojedeji:Thanks Chair

  Martin Boyle, Nominet:Thanks Jonathan, bye all

  Seun Ojedeji:bye all

  Sivasubramanian M:Bye all

  Avri Doria:i am betting 35+

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC):By all

  Matthew Shears:thanks all

  Staffan Jonson:Thank YOu all, bye

  Andrew Sullivan:Bye all, thanks to chairs

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:bye

  Carolina Aguerre:Thanks, bye

  Greg Shatan:Bye all.

  Allan MacGillivray:Thanks all.

  Wale Bakare:Bye all

  • No labels