Agenda 

1. Recap & Continuation of Prior Meeting 

2. Design Teams

3. Outstanding Sections

4. Client Committee

5. Term Sheet

6. CCWG-Accountability Public Comment

7. Sign off on Final Proposal

Notes

Overall Timeline / Milestones

• 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting
• 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting – review final proposal (sign-off?)
• 8 June - submission to SO/ACs
• 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting – Next steps, communication, other issues
• W/C 8 June – Communication Work - Webinars on 11 June?
• 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires

Notes: 

Eduardo Diaz on audio only

1. Recap & Continuation of Prior Meeting 

• Worked with outputs from DT-N and DT-SR/X

IFRT

• Agreement to add ccNSO member to IFRT 
• Alternates -- 2 options: members could each have alternates (doubling the size) OR member could name alternates in case of substitution 
• These groups are open and transparent processes so anyone can observe proceedings
• Clarification: No additional gTLD representation

S[C]WG

• Geographic diversity where possible
• Skillset recommendations
• Expansion proposition: 3 gTLD registries & 3 ccTLD registries (one additional ccTLD registry and one additional gTLD registry). The registries must ensure georgraphic diversity.
• This group is also open and transparent  so anyone can observe proceedings
• Recognising that at the time the SWG will be invoked this will be at the end of a substantial process. As such, the SWG is expected to move will be required to move forward with expediency and due diligence.

Separation Costs

• Transition costs and ongoing operation costs
• Sufficient portion of registry fees would be dedicated to the IANA services which would carry over should there be to the new operator should there be a separation, but this should not result in an increase in fees. May need to be evaluated periodically to assess whether there have been changes in budget.
• ICANN maintains responsibility for funding of the IANA functions services whether in house or not (for any future state of the IANA functions)

Key points on Separation Costs

• 1. in the event of a future transition, ICANN would fund transition
• 2. ICANN is responsible for ongoing funding of IANA operation & services
• 3. no raise in fees directly associated with that

2. Design Teams

Action: DTs aim to finalize responses to PC and documents/edits to draft proposal by Monday 1 June at 12:00 UTC

3. Outstanding Sections

Action: Staff to provide updated draft for sections iv, v, vi in draft to be circulated for Tuesday's call (2 June)

4. Client Committee

• Client Committee to ask Sidley to assist CWG with assuring condionality with CCWG-Accountability proposal 
• For ICANN 53 in BA, Holly will cover CCWG Accountability and may not be able to fully cover both groups, so request for Sharon Flanagan attendance as well. 
• Assistance with Bylaws -- making sure changes are clear and known 
• Punch List reviewed and checked for completeness (CWG staff to compile first)

5. Term Sheet

• Term Sheet is available here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/Term%20Sheet%20-%20ICANN_PTI%20Contract%20.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1432138454000&api=v2 
• The Term Sheet is a draft set of terms that will be implemented in the ICANN-PTI Contract (foundation on which the contract could be based)
• Comments on Term Sheet due on Monday June 1 at 23:59 UTC

6. CCWG-Accountability Public Comment

• Coordination between groups
• We received comments from the CCWG Chairs and CWG Chairs plan to respond to their public comment as well by 3 June

7. Sign off on Final Proposal

• Draft Final on Tuesday 2 June
• 2nd reading and sign off on Thursday 4 June
• No vote (preferred) -- instead a process of non-objection
• If there are objections to signing off, we should seek explanations (and where possible try to remedy them)
• Distinguish between SO/AC approval and CWG approval 

8. AOB: James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: Need to discuss delivery of a draft timeline for implementation to ICG at some stage today if possible.

• Part of Section IV -- work in progress

Action Items

Action: DTs aim to finalize responses to PC and documents/edits to draft proposal by Monday 1 June at 12:00 UTC

Action: Staff to provide updated draft for sections iv, v, vi in draft to be circulated for Tuesday's call (2 June)

Transcript

Recordings

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p9k8tnxtvlv/

The audio MP3 link is available here:

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (5/29/2015 08:41) Welcome to the CWG IANA Intensive Work Day 2, Session 6 on 29 May 2015.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (08:51) back again:  hi all

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff support: (08:51) hi all

  Andrew Sullivan: (08:57) Hello.  I'll have to drop about 11:00 for another conf call, I'm afraid.  No idea how long that will last, but if it's over in time I'll return to this call.

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (08:59) Here-ish for a bit, fully here in about 30

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (08:59) With my apologies for this, Jonathan. Thanks.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (08:59) Bari sax solo on the hold music.  That's my jam!

  Michael Clark (Sidley): (08:59) Good day all

  Lise Fuhr: (09:00) @OCL what about apologies to the other chair?

  Staffan Jonson: (09:00) Afternoon All

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:01) @Lise: I wasn't sure who was Chairing this call :-) Apologies to Both Chairs! And to everyone else because it makes it sometimes annoying when someone doesn't speak & is just typing heir responses

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:01) their responses

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (09:03) Hello again for the 3rd time today.

  Lise Fuhr: (09:03) @OCL that's ok :-)

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:11) Evening all

  Donna Austin, RySG: (09:11) I have some sympathy for Alan's position.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:12) How were these things managed in the ATRT1&2?

  Avri Doria: (09:12) we had more than 1 member, no alternates

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:16) yes:  important to get these voices in to underpin the RfP development

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:16) In ATRT1 & 2 there were non speaking observers, life streaming/adobe connect

  Grace Abuhamad: (09:16) But that would be thecase for IFRT and SCWG too @Olivier

  Grace Abuhamad: (09:16) Or have I misunderstood?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:17) ie disagree Alan & Avri

  Donna Austin, RySG: (09:17) except that the day to day operations of registry business depends on IANA

  Staffan Jonson2: (09:17) No new point

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:17) I also disagree with Alan.

  Staffan Jonson2: (09:18) In last meeting I found Lises middle ground feasible

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (09:18) I tend to agree with Alan.

  Paul Kane: (09:18) Registries do care :-)  We are passionate about making this work

  Alan Greenberg: (09:18) Not surprising that the people requesting extra membership are objecting to those who disagree.

  Lise Fuhr: (09:18) @Staffan this is the SCWG and not the IFRT

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:19) that's 5 registries for 14 membership

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:20) in the last call we started with 1 CCNSO 1 non CCSNO and 2 gTLDs

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (09:20) That said, I am receptive to some modest expansion.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:20) now we added one more ccNSO

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:20) hardly a good balance for the definition of the requirements for technical requirements

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:20) and now we're asking for one more Registry?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:21) Considering that the WG would use a consensus approach and not rely on voting, I don't think that the number of registry members/participants is critical from a voting perspective but rather from having an expertise perspective.  Registries have direct expertise working with IANA and sometimes have different experiences.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:21) @Chuck: I am sorry but I fear that this is a red herring

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:21) Also keep in mind that any WG recommendations will have to be approved by the full ccNSO and GNSO as well as others.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (09:21) I think any geo diversity should be a SHOULD and not a MUST.

  Avri Doria: (09:22) just one more member here, and one more member there, eventualy it adds up to lots of members.

  Andrew Sullivan: (09:22) @Chuck: the problem with your argument is that, if different registries have different experiences, then you ought to include all registries in order to get al the experiences

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:22) it's likke saying that only Board members who are working in the industry of Domain names have the knowledge of the topic

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:22) Do you have direct experience with IANA Oliver?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:22) I had experience with IANA in 1995

  Avri Doria: (09:22) who next needs an extraa member?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:22) oh sorry -- Jon Postel.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (09:23) Are we establishing litmus tests?

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:23) good point chuck about recommendations needing  overall SO approval

  Andrew Sullivan: (09:23) Alternatively, of course, we assume that people from the various SOs are talking with one another, and therefore that one person can reflect experience of more than one registry.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:23) @ Olivier: He was the IANA.  :)

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:23) indeed :-)

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:24) I think Donnas proposition is okay if we lock the composition after that with no other additions

  Avri Doria: (09:24) as long as one is always Chuck i can live wth it

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:24) Does chuck get an alternate then =)

  Avri Doria: (09:24) there is no alternate

  Avri Doria: (09:25) we walked aways from CSC, becase this was guaranteed multistakeholder.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:25) ...and to add to ALan we cannot keep on bartering with numbers and then say that the numbers do not matter.

  Avri Doria: (09:26) point to Martin

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:27) again -- I am so hoping that we are all agreeing these are specific to technical functions, pretty much black & white scenarios - by the time we reach the point of having SCWG we all know that action needs to be taken. So why are we arguing number of people in those processes?

  Donna Austin, RySG: (09:27) to be clear: I was not suggesting an additional gTLD registry to the IFRT: just the SCWG because I believe that in the event that a Separation Review is required, there will be serious implications for registry operators.

  Avri Doria: (09:28) 6/12

  Avri Doria: (09:28) not counting liaisions

  Avri Doria: (09:28) it half not invluding laisions

  Avri Doria: (09:30) i had understood that.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (09:31) SCWG is pronounced skwig.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:32) @Avri:  6/14, isn't it?

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:32) As you know Alan, even with the increase, the registries are not a majority.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:32) What is the concern that Registries have about having 5 rather than 6?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:35) what are we banking?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:35) ah, ok. I wasn't clear

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (09:35) I can live with 3 from each reg species.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:35) Thanks

  Avri Doria: (09:35) 1 addtional for GTLDs - with a requirement for full geo diversity amond the registries.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:35) Im with Greg, make the change but  would also hope that we can lock the composition then no more addition requests

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (09:36) I tend to prefer a soft commitment to diversity.

  Avri Doria: (09:36) i prefer a hard one

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (09:37) That said, if all the reg's can live with a hard one (so to speak), I can live with that, too.

  Avri Doria: (09:37) 5 regions with 6 people

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:37) I think with 6 including 3 ccNSO hard diversity might be available

  Lise Fuhr: (09:38) @James 2 ccNSO and 1 ccTLD

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:38) The bottom line is that any group can only put forward candidates who volunteer.  They can reach out to volunteers from different regions, but cannot make them volunteer.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:38) Expediency, care, consultation

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (09:39) There are various types of diversity, not only geodiversity.  Should we require that 1 of the gTLD registries be a .brand?

  Avri Doria: (09:39) Greg, i was waitng for that.  I raise you a community TLD

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:39) ...and 1 gTLD should be Community TLD?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:40) :-) same thought :-)

  Donna Austin, RySG: (09:40) I think we leave the diversity of gTLDs to the RySG to decide.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:40) ...and one IDN Regisrty

  Avri Doria: (09:40) of course Donna, I agree.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:41) The RySG charter requires its representatives to represent all registries to the extent that the registries have a common position.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:41) 'in order to maintain the stabilioty of the root'

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:41) yes

  Avri Doria: (09:41) makes sense to put in that langauge.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (09:46) and those fees currently pay for the IANA service, so that should continue in the event that IANA is provided by an entity other than ICANN.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:46) Thats how I read it

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (09:46) This applies to Registrars as well

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (09:46) certainly a portion of Rr fees are supporting IANA

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:47) Not even that its the contractor, if you move your contract you bear the legal and procurement costs

  Avri Doria: (09:48) in either case ICANN pays. changing the ICANN budget to allocate monies collected seems beyond our scope to me.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:50) I disagree about the contract being given to the lowest bidding entity. This is not a commercial thing.

  Avri Doria: (09:50) his best was not necessarily cheapest.

  Lise Fuhr: (09:50) @Avri it think it is within the scope to recommend the funding

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:50) aah ok thanks

  Avri Doria: (09:51) you think we can tell ICANN not only that it pays, but how its internal accounting treats the funds it takes in?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:51) LOL -- end users are the source of all funding :-)

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:51) Indeed

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:51) sorry

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (09:51) To clarify, regististries and registrars provided the bulk of funding

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (09:52) but yes, ultimately that comes from registrants

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:53) where the funding comes from is a religious discussion - do we have another 6 hours to discuss? :-)

  Avri Doria: (09:53) if you count the time ICANN Community is putting in, we are all paying for the transiton

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:54) I think it would be a very bad precedent for Registries to fund IANA directly.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:55) direct funding of Registries to the IANA Operator opens the door for direct contracting between the IANA Operator and Registries

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:55) isn't the IFO under contract from icann?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:55) @Martin: yes but ICANN needs to be kept in the loop

  Donna Austin, RySG: (09:56) @Olivier, you might recall that very early in the life of the CWG it was assumed by some that the registries would fund an IANA operator that was external to ICANN and the number being discussed was $10m.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (09:56) because it is the party holding the contractual relationship

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:57) @Donna: yes but I do not think I would have agreed with that.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:57) Is this not why we are asking for the budget reject power in CCWG to account for situations like this

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:57) well said @avri

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:57) I don't think the IANA budget is out of scope for CWG.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (09:58) any IANA operator would need to remain contracted via ICANN

  Avri Doria: (09:58) how ICANN pays for IANA is out of scope

  Avri Doria: (09:58) it just does.

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (09:58) Agreed with Chuck.

  Paul Kane: (09:59) On that note - can we ensure that ALL IANA data is held in escrow

  Paul Kane: (09:59) (may be already) but needs release doc

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:59) Understand that gTLD registries historically had very little say in what our fees are.

  Avri Doria: (10:00) likewise with registrants

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:01) Agreed Avri.

  Avri Doria: (10:01) 'final call' is such a tease

  Lise Fuhr: (10:02) @Avri final call today and the famous 6th call :-)

  Paul Kane: (10:03) You mean Monday 1st or 8th June - I thought it was the 8th

  Donna Austin, RySG: (10:03) Your plan may be a little ambitious for DT-C

  Staffan Jonson2: (10:03) Thanks Donna!

  Lise Fuhr: (10:03) @Paul it is Monday 1st June

  Paul Kane: (10:04) Our next call with IANA (after today's) is the 8th June

  Paul Kane: (10:04) as Elise and Kim are busy next week

  Paul Kane: (10:05) We should have the SLE doc for 8th

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:05) Need to discuss delivery of a draft timeline for impleneation to ICG at some stage today if possible.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (10:08) We would like Sharon Flanagan to join if possible

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:08) Based on IST experience would be very valuable to have Sidley there and available

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:09) +1 re. Sharon

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:09) agreed

  Matthew Shears: (10:11) Sorry, Jonathon - are you saying that this proposal is not dependent on the work of the CCWG?  What if those dependencies are not realized?

  Matthew Shears: (10:11) ok

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (10:11) Absolutely support Holly and Sharon both in Buenos Aires.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (10:12) Did we fall over?

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:12) But the PTI accountability aspects are completely depdendent on CCWG reforms, as I understand it

  Matthew Shears: (10:12) + 1 Brenden

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (10:12) Good point

  Alan Greenberg: (10:14) voice low

  Avri Doria: (10:14) why do we need to wait.  I do not see that interaction.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (10:14) Agreed:  significant interaction including re bylaws

  Avri Doria: (10:14) other than getting the bylaws changed.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:16) I disagree Johnathan I think we nee to start realising that the timeline is becoming more important now as we approach a final proposal

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:16) OK Ill take that =)

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:17) Term Sheet is available here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/Term%20Sheet%20-%20ICANN_PTI%20Contract%20.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1432138454000&api=v2

  Avri Doria: (10:21) pick the right issue and i will be there with my hand up.

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:21) Go avri!

  Staffan Jonson2: (10:21) avri :-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:22) silence does not equal complacency nor disinterest,

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:23) We can have a 'humming' conference call (Not a genuine suggestion)

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:23) I assume if there are objections to sign-off, we will ask for explanations.

  Matthew Shears: (10:24) it might be reasonable to allow folks to make comments  in addition to signing off

  Avri Doria: (10:24) humming is for startng conversations, not ending them.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (10:25) Does CWG have to factor in that CCWG will have its second public comment period in July/August?

  Matthew Shears: (10:25) + 1 Mark

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:26) a very good point @Allan

  Marika Konings: (10:26) In the event a chartering organization would not approve the proposal, the charter prescribes the following: In the event that one or more of the participating chartering organizations elects not to adopt one or more of the recommendation(s) contained in the Draft Transition Proposal, the co-chairs of the CWG shall be notified accordingly. This notification shall include at a minimum the reasons for the lack of support. The CWG participants may, at their discretion, decide to reconsider the recommendations, post the recommendations for public comments and/or incorporate appropriate changes into the Supplemental Draft Transition Proposal to the chartering organizations.

  Avri Doria: (10:27) i expect we will also have revisit after ICG review, how does that timing coincide with CCWG second review?

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:27) No, Avri, I don't think the CWG revisits once submitted to ICG

  Matthew Shears: (10:27) thank Marika - good to be reminded - so we have to factor in additional time

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:28) ICG has their own comment period and methods for participation and engament

  Avri Doria: (10:28) really if they send back issues and questions, as the did with protocols and numbers, , who deals with it?

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:28) well, if they send it back, that's different

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:28) I thought you meant that CWG would re-approve after ICG approval

  Avri Doria: (10:28) that is what i mean.  i am not so optimistic as to think something this complex will fit the puzzle with no requesteed adjustments.

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:29) But in that case, we deal with it when it happens, no?

  Avri Doria: (10:29) or requested 'reconsiderations' in the light of x, y, or z.

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:29) Our mission is to get a proposal to ICG. That's the timeline we work to

  Avri Doria: (10:29) but of course.  just planning and looking for how that matches the CCWG review schedule.

  Avri Doria: (10:30) i assume out mission includes dealing with any questions that come back from them.

  Avri Doria: (10:30) IANAPLAN and CRISP have both had to deal with follow up.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:31) A key question we need to answer is whether the CWG consensus call is for members only or members and participants.

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:31) right. I am thinking of the pressure timeline we are working towards which is submission to ICG in first instance. the rest are all possible options, but we deal with it when it happends

  Avri Doria: (10:31) hmmm, ok.

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:32) well, that's my thinking anyway. ICG is a different ballgame :)

  Avri Doria: (10:32) just a differnt inning, i think.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (10:32) ALAC is not alone in that fear....

  Matthew Shears: (10:32) + 1 Alan

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:32) ooh, deep sports anology :)

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:32) Extra innings?  :)

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:33) The ICG and between ICG-NTIA interim timeline is complex, more complex that I think we have reaslied, which I will talk about :P Theres a whole other pressesured timeline after we submit to ICG

  Jonathan Robinson: (10:33) Noise on line

  Andrew Sullivan: (10:34) @Chuck re: consensus.  The charter's "decision-making methodologies" section refers to "members", so I think the answer is there

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff support: (10:34) mikes

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:34) @James -- right

  Avri Doria: (10:36) it is a narrow window.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (10:38) I used "parochial"

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (10:38) It's not even lunchtime....

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:38) Thanks Andrew. The charter indeed does say members.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:39) timeline for icg =)

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:40) Yes 9 of June

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (10:42) Thank you for the heads up re this 3 month testing period and the "reversability notion"

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:43) Will the ICG accept a best case scenario and a more realistic view?

  Avri Doria: (10:44) we would unwind the legal separation. is that what you mean by reversability?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:45) agree @James

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:45) Yes @avri

  Avri Doria: (10:45) oh.  i expect that is hardly likely.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:46) I think we need to be extremly cautius in not preparing for that possibility, its prudent risk manangement

  Avri Doria: (10:46) we may be able to pick an intermediate point that is not quite full separation.  but unwinding it, would be a mess.

  Paul Kane: (10:47) This is VERY rushed

  Avri Doria: (10:47) i think once separated it stays spearated even if NTI does not turn over the stewardship.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley): (10:47) To what extent can the testing be based on everyone committed to act "as if" for the 3 months?  Would like to know more. about the expectations

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:48) @Holly -- this is something for the Client Comittee next week

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:48) At the moment we dont know yet Holly

  Avri Doria: (10:48) nothing really needs to unwind, we just keep working to fix until the NTIA consents.

  Avri Doria: (10:48) i think unwinding is not the right approach.

  Matthew Shears: (10:48) can we fix thnigs in the ICG's 3 months?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:49) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

  Avri Doria: (10:49) or the testing period exntends until we do get it right.

  Donna Austin, RySG: (10:49) Thanks for the leadership Jonathan and Lise, and the support from Grace, Marika, Bernie and the team.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:49) Thanks all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:49) at 0149 that 10 mins makes such an difference :-)

  Allan MacGillivray: (10:49) + 1 @ Donna

  Michael Clark (Sidley): (10:49) Thanks

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:49) Thanks all.

  Paul Kane: (10:50) Thanks

  Staffan Jonson2: (10:50) Yes, Thank You for excelent Charing and fab. staff!

  Andrew Sullivan: (10:50) thanks to all

  Avri Doria: (10:50) over already?

  Matthew Shears: (10:50) thanks

  Allan MacGillivray: (10:50) BYe all

  Lise Fuhr: (10:50) Thank you all and goodbye

  Bernard Turcotte - Staff support: (10:50) bye all

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG: (10:50) thanks

  Avri Doria: (10:50) bye.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (10:50) bye

  Jaap Akkerhuis -- SSAC: (10:50) Thanks all, bye

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC): (10:50) Bye all!

  Mary Uduma: (10:50) Thank you All

  Nathalie Coupet: (10:50) Bye

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (10:50) bye all