Members:  Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Eduardo Diaz, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane, Seun Ojedeji  (11)

Participants:  Alan Greenberg, Allan MacGillivray, Andrew Sullivan, Becky Burr, Chuck Gomes, Harold Arcos, Kavouss Arasteh, Mark Carvell, Mary Uduma, Matthew Shears, Milton Mueller   (11)

Legal Counsel:  Holly Gregory, Josh Hofheimer, Yael Resnick   (3)

Staff:  Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Nathalie Vergnolle, Trang Nguyen, Samantha Eisner, Xavier Calvez, Yuko Green

Apologies:  Phil Corwin, David Conrad


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


1. Status Update

2. Implementation Update

      •       Staff update

      •       DT-A/ Names SLEs update (Paul Kane)

      •       DT-O update on PTI budget  (Chuck Gomes)

3. Key Topics (with Sidley)

      •       Naming Functions Agreement

      •  PTI Bylaws

      •       Services Agreement

      •  IANA IPR

4. Client Committee

5. AOB


“Please note that these are best efforts notes and may not fully reflect the discussions – refer to recording and transcript for full accuracy.”

1. Status update / objectives of the call

  • CWG comment letter submitted for PTI governance documents
  • Several calls for IANA IPR
  • Goal to prepare comments for PTI bylaws
  • Goal to prepare IANA IPR documents for public comment
  • IANA IPR topic will be the 1st topic on the agenda, then agenda will resume



  • Goal is to release IANA IPR agreements for public comments today.
  • 3 agreements:

-        IP assignment agreement (btw ICANN and Trust)

-        License agreement (btw Trust and ICANN)

-        Community agreement (btw the trust and 3 OCs)

  • The 3 OCs have formed the CCG: Community Coordination Group for coordination with the trust.
  • CCG nomination process to be determined by the communities (preferably prior to the transition)
  • Signing party representing the community needs to be determined -
  • Group agrees to send out 3 agreements for public comment today, and recommends putting ICANN as signing party representing the community (if ICANN agrees to it today, and with footnote to define conditions for ICANN to represent the community yet to be determined). If ICANN cannot approve, the topic will be left blank, with a note "to be determined".


2. Implementation update

  • Staff update provided by Trang

-        PTI Articles of Incorporation approved by ICANN Board

-        Incorporation of PTI in progress

-        Staff report on governing docs public comments to be released shortly

-        Subcontracting agreements being finalized

-        Naming function contract agreement is out for public comment

-        CSC is complete

-        Services agreement will be shared with the community as soon as possible

ACTION: staff to update the timeline to reflect the new name of PTI " Public Technical Identifiers"

  • Names SLEs update by Paul Kane

-        Work group has approved the SLEs (document circulated earlier this week) and seeks approval of the CWG

-        CWG approves the SLEs.

ACTION: CWG (Paul) to inform ICANN that SLEs are final. 

  • DT-O update by Chuck Gomes

-        Process proposal + proposed language for the PTI bylaws distributed yesterday

-        DT-O has made an assessment of the alignment of the proposed IANA Budget Development and Approval Process with the CWG proposal

ACTION (CWG): IANA Budget process and assessment to be reviewed by the group and discussed further in next CWG call.

-        Group reviewed language for PTI bylaws

ACTION (Chuck): provide language and edits from Kavouss and Olivier to Sidley

ACTION (Sidley): incorporate changes suggested by the group in the comment letter on the PTI bylaws

-        Treasury structure / bank account for PTI - this has not been determined yet, topic will be addressed by the DT-O in the next few weeks.


3.2 PTI Bylaws open issues

  • Chair person nomination language: group goes with proposal from Matthew and Greg.
  • Term limits meant to be only for the chair, 2x3years limit agreed by the group.
  • No further issues raised by the group

ACTION (Lise): send Matthew/Greg proposals to Sidley

ACTION (Sidley): incorporate changes suggested by the group in the comment letter on the PTI bylaws


3.3 Naming function agreement

  • Staff will provide to CWG a document showing how the principles of annex C have been incorporated in the Naming function contract


4. Client Committee

  • No topic to be discussed


5. AOB

  • Gratitude expressed for work put by all to get to this point

Action Items

  • ACTION: staff to update the timeline to reflect the new name of PTI " Public Technical Identifiers"
  • ACTION: CWG (Paul) to inform ICANN that SLEs are final. 
  • ACTION (CWG): IANA Budget process and assessment to be reviewed by the group and discussed further in next CWG call.
  • ACTION (Chuck): provide language and edits from Kavouss and Olivier to Sidley
  • ACTION (Sidley): incorporate changes suggested by the group in the comment letter on the PTI bylaws
  • ACTION (Lise): send Matthew/Greg proposals to Sidley
  • ACTION (Sidley): incorporate changes suggested by the group in the comment letter on the PTI bylaws





Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (8/11/2016 08:37) Good Day all and Welcome to CWG IANA Meeting #87 on 11 August 2016 @ 14:00 UTC!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (08:57) Hi everybody

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (08:58) Good evening/afternoon/morning all

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (08:58) afternoon call for me!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (08:58) delete clear or clearly

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (08:59) Josh Hofheimer is on -- audio only. Thanks

  Lise Fuhr: (08:59) Hello all

  Greg Shatan: (08:59) Hello everybody!

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:00) Hello

  Yuko Green: (09:02) We will get started shortly

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:04) r Brenda, I have finished with IRO IOT. PLS KINDLY ADVISE TO DIAL ME UP

  Brenda Brewer: (09:05) Kavouss we are calling you now

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (09:06) Hello.

  Becky Burr: (09:06) hello

  Eduardo Diaz (ALAC): (09:07) Happy birthday Greg!

  Greg Shatan: (09:08) Thank you!

  Avri Doria: (09:08) happy happy, joy joy!

  Greg Shatan: (09:08) I am at my desk in sultry NYC

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (09:08) All best wishes for a wonderful birthday Greg!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:09) I understand that it is the Birth Day of Grec, If that is the case, Happy Birthday Grec

  Greg Shatan: (09:10) Thank you all!

  Greg Shatan: (09:11) IETF Trustees are also meeting today to approve these drafts for public comment.

  andrew sullivan: (09:12) To be clear, the protocol parameters community actually expressed no concern about the IPR moving

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:12) What is "3.1. IANA IPRObjective is to release IANA IPR agreements for public comments today."

  andrew sullivan: (09:12) IANAPLAN said it didn't care

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:12) Who objected?

  Greg Shatan: (09:13) Andrew, thanks for clarifying.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:14) Why IANA PLAN SAID IT DOES NOT CARE? rEASONS?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:15) iS THE iana irp not relevant to transition ?

  andrew sullivan: (09:16) IANAPLAN thought that, if there were a hostile separation, we'd just change the name we use

  andrew sullivan: (09:16) and wouldn't use "IANA" as a name any more

  andrew sullivan: (09:17) so the IPR wasn't worth protecting

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:17) Then why we have spent time on IRP IANA?'

  andrew sullivan: (09:17) we didn't think it was likely that that would happen so we concluded that the effort of protecting the IPR was greater than the value we'd get

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (09:17) and that decision can still be made in the future but options are protected

  andrew sullivan: (09:17) because the RIRs required it

  andrew sullivan: (09:17) so there's no way to get the transition without it

  Greg Shatan: (09:18) The IPR could have been left where it was, but the decision was made to move it, and that's baked into the transition plan. Once that was done, these actions regarding the IANA IPR became a necessary step in the transition.

  andrew sullivan: (09:18) exactly, Greg

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:19) Then what? do we need that now or in future or not at all at any time?

  andrew sullivan: (09:19) we need it now.  We need to complete this because otherwise, we can't do the transition

  andrew sullivan: (09:19) because it was a requirement of the numbers community

  Greg Shatan: (09:19) I suggest listening to Josh's overview of the documents.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:19) Then what is issue of the objection?

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (09:20) There is no objection that I'm aware of.

  Greg Shatan: (09:21) There's no issue.  Josh said that the Protocol Parameters Community supported moving the IPR out of ICANN.  Andrew clarified that their position was "non-objection."

  andrew sullivan: (09:21) right

  Avri Doria: (09:24) how does naming community pick its CCG members?  or is that question premature

  Avri Doria: (09:24) is that similar to the who signs agreement discussion yet to come?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (09:24) Avri - that is a question that will need ot be addressed but not before posting agremeents

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (09:24) Yes, Avri - they are connected

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (09:25) And neither of those issues needs to be decided today, but they will need to be decided

  Avri Doria: (09:25) thanks.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:25) Yes we have to implement ICG conclusions

  Seun Ojedeji: (09:27) Is there any feedback from legal on the viability of having ICANN sign the agreement?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (09:28) We have asked ICANN if they would be the counterparty and they are considering it.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (09:28) And we can discuss on this call what the options are as Greg is just now noting

  Greg Shatan: (09:31) We could call the new entity "Contract Co."  Just kidding....

  andrew sullivan: (09:32) Perhaps Internet Authorizing for Names Association.  That'll make everything clearer.

  Samantha Eisner: (09:32) Technically, the Empowered COmmunity does not exist until the Bylaws go into effect, but that is as soon as we'd need signature on those documents

  Samantha Eisner: (09:33) If the EC was used in that way, it could require a modification to the ICANN Bylaws

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (09:33) Agreed - that is one of ythe disadvantages of that approach

  Samantha Eisner: (09:34) We could not complete that authorization for a matter of months after the transition

  Samantha Eisner: (09:34) (for the EC)

  Samantha Eisner: (09:35) I do not yet have a response from ICANN on it, but should shortly

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (09:35) Sam, we agree.  It was not contemplated that the EC would be used in this way and it would require consideration of all the decision paths, and bylaw amendment , so has disadvantages.

  Samantha Eisner: (09:36) Agreed, Holly

  Kavouss Arasteh: (09:36) JOSH, YOU REFERRING TO rOLE ' WHAT ROLE PLS?

  Greg Shatan: (09:36) Of course, SOs and ACs are not legal entities (though they could become Unincorporated Associations).

  Greg Shatan: (09:37) The role of signatory to the names agreement on behalf of the "Names Community."

  Greg Shatan: (09:37) Signatory and Party, to be more complete.


  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (09:43) EC will be a legal entity but there are concerns that it is beyond its mandate (at least as bylaws currently contemplate)

  Greg Shatan: (09:43) I had a frøsnapper for breakfast this morning.  I did not have a roll.  The frøsnapper was a special treat to myself, for my birthday.

  Seun Ojedeji: (09:43) @Greg, the SO/AC cannot be UA as that idea was dropped during the CCWG proposal development

  Lise Fuhr: (09:44) @Sharon thank you for specifying

  Greg Shatan: (09:45) @Seun, that decision was made in the specific instance of setting up the Empowered Community.  There's no reason the idea of UAs could not be revisited for other purposes.  That said, I don't think it's our best choice at the moment.

  Seun Ojedeji: (09:46) ICANN remains the home of names community just like the RIR(s) is the home of numbers so i think it should be easy for ICANN to sign. Nevertheless, i will be looking to read from ICANN legal,  noting that i would be surprised if their response is a NO

  Greg Shatan: (09:47) I would not push a comparison of ICANN and the RIRs too far.  There are many differences.  Just look at the Accountability WG's work for evidence of what those differences are.

  Samantha Eisner: (09:51) I will see if I can get authorization for that before the documents are submitted for comment, Greg.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:51) Should multiple options for signing be put in the draft bylaws for comment rather than just one?

  Samantha Eisner: (09:51) Please do not put ICANN in unless we have an affirmative agreement that ICANN  should be named as a proposed signatory

  Greg Shatan: (09:52) My suggestion is subject to ICANN's approval. Agree with Sam.

  Paul Kane: (09:52) Alan +1

  Greg Shatan: (09:53) We should put it in brackets in any case, to signify that it's only a provisional ideal.

  Greg Shatan: (09:53) I'm surprised the idea of moving the IANA IPR to a third party sounded simple to anyone.

  Greg Shatan: (09:53) It was a baby monster from the beginning.

  Greg Shatan: (09:54) It just matured over time to being a grown-up monster.

  Alan Greenberg: (09:54) Greg, I was going back further before it was clear that we had to assign to a 3rd party.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (09:54) What happens if ICANN is unwilling or unable to assume the signatory role?

  Greg Shatan: (09:55) Alan, I agree that would have been much simpler.  And I liked that idea.  Unfortunately, the consensus went otherwise.

  Greg Shatan: (09:56) (Although I think our position was "non-objection," like the IETF...)

  Greg Shatan: (09:57) Sam, can the question be whether ICANN "could" be the proposed signatory, rather than "should"?

  Samantha Eisner: (09:57) I'm working to get approval for at least the purposes of public comment

  Greg Shatan: (09:57) I think ICANN can be neutral on the "should" point.  And probably should be.

  Greg Shatan: (09:58) Like the IETF Trust , ICANN can be "willing" to take on the role.

  Greg Shatan: (09:58) Without really wanting it.

  Samantha Eisner: (09:58) @Greg, agreed on the neutrality for "should"

  Greg Shatan: (09:58) Thanks, Sam.

  Samantha Eisner: (09:58) we are exploring at the request of the CWG

  Eduardo Diaz (ALAC): (10:00) PTI is not anymore Post Transition IANA. The Board approved one is Public Technical Identifiers

  Alan Greenberg: (10:01) Just love repurposed acronyms

  Eduardo Diaz (ALAC): (10:01) We need to update this graph to reflect the change

  matthw shears: (10:04) culd you provide the link to the latest version of the timeline

  Avri Doria: (10:06) Alan, me too.  done in the best traditions.

  Yuko Green: (10:07) @Matthew, we will circulate the timeine after the call

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:09) the timeine circulation would be very helpful

  Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: (10:09) Many thanks to Trang for the ccomprehensive update. This shows remarkable substantive progress which reflects the dedicated hard work and extraordinary effort by ICANN staff and all involved. Look forward to seeing the updated timeline etc.

  Greg Shatan: (10:09) We could make the CWG an Unincorporated Association and have it (us) be the signatory.  How's that for a terrible idea?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:10) Grec ,It is something which could work. I like that idea

  Samantha Eisner: (10:11) UPDATE - I have received approval to include ICANN as a proposed signatory for the purposes of public comment.  I think that it will be important to indicate that this is at the request of the CWG, and not at ICANN's request

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:11) May we ask Holly or Josh whether that idea is leggaly workable

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:11) Sam - We can note that in the footnote

  Lise Fuhr: (10:11) @Sam thank you - we will include it in the foot note

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:12) Thanks to DT-A and IANA staff for the extensive work they did on SLEs.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:12) we need to hear the legal advice from Sidley

  Donna Austin, RySg: (10:12) thank you Paul

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:12) Good work on the SLEs!

  Greg Shatan: (10:13) We need to write that footnote quickly so the documents can go out for public comment.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:13) Holly ,does the idea submitted by Gec is leggaly workable

  Jonathan Robinson: (10:14) Hello All. I have now joined on Adobe. I was on phone for past 30 minutes. Travelling beforehand.

  Greg Shatan: (10:14) I'll give Seun credit for first raising the suggestion on the list.  I am but a mere messenger turned acolyte.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:17) Lise, we had a call before yours and have another call after yours

  Xavier Calvez: (10:21) I responded a bit earlier by email to indicate that I did not see any objection to Kavouss' edits.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:22) Can someone send me the proposed bylaws language?

  Lise Fuhr: (10:24) Just did Sharon

  Yuko Green: (10:24) You have scrolling control now

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:28) can the language be posted here?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:28) Board is defined so it is ok as is

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:28) I have no problem  to add that if really necessary

  Yuko Green: (10:30) Suggested language in discussion:(a) At least  9 months prior to the commencement of each fiscal year, the Corporation shall submit to the Board  and ICANN a proposed annual operating plan and budget for the Corporation’s next fiscal year (“Annual Budget”).  (e) Immediately  after the Board approves the Annual Budget, it shall be submitted to ICANN for inclusion in ICANN’s proposed Annual  Operating Plan and Budget..

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:30) So shoudl (a) say a "draft" budget?

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (10:30) Kavouss, Greg's idea re creating CWG as an unincorporate association is fairly simply and easily doable

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:31) Tks

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:32) wE COULD ADD THE WORD " pti" before Board

  Xavier Calvez: (10:32) it is more than a draft, because it is a "proposed draft".

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:32) Actually is says "proposed" in (a) so it's fine

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:32) No problem to add " Draft"

  Greg Shatan: (10:32) Holly, I think Kavouss may have been referring to ICANN as signatory as "Greg's idea."

  Greg Shatan: (10:33) The CWG idea was a last-moment brain drizzle.  Or perhaps just an idea from the bad idea fairy.

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (10:33) ICANN as signatory is a simpler solution

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (10:33) and I see that Sam has indicated that ICANN is willing

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:34) Yes but we still need to establish that unincorportaed Association from names commuity to authorise ICANN TO SIGN

  Greg Shatan: (10:36) Kavouss, I don't thiink that's necessary.  I believe ICANN can be authorized using the SOACs  (directly or via the CWG).  But I will leave that question to Sharon and Holly.

  Xavier Calvez: (10:37) @lise. Understood.

  Greg Shatan: (10:37) ...and to Sam as well.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:39) @Xavier - please send me whatever is the final version of the language and we will drop into the comment letter and bylaws Thanks

  Greg Shatan: (10:39) I'll provide the PTI bank details....

  Paul Kane: (10:40) Thanks :-)

  Paul Kane: (10:40) Agree - Ijust think it sensible to have its own bank account.....  delighted not to have missed it!

  Paul Kane: (10:40) :-)

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (10:42) Thanks to Olivier, Cheryl & Mary who have been consistent and constructive participants in DT-O.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:43) i HAVE ALSO SUPPORTED cHRISTOPHER

  Xavier Calvez: (10:46) Have to leave now. Thank you.

  Lise Fuhr: (10:46) Thank you Xavier

  Avri Doria: (10:48) i support Matt's concerns.

  Avri Doria: (10:48) and support either of the proposed solutions.

  Jonathan Robinson: (10:49) @Lise. As referenced by Matthew, Greg did add a little additional nuance by suggesting that the NomCom provide at least one candidate with chairing qualifications.

  Avri Doria: (10:49) with preference for the nomcom based sugggestion.


  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:50) i PREFER NOT TO HAVE non com dIRECTORS THERE

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:51) I have concerns about the lack of term limit for a Chair that was not NomCom

  matthw shears: (10:51) correct

  matthw shears: (10:51) + 1 Olivier

  Jonathan Robinson: (10:52) @Kavous. The issue is not about the use of Nom Com to source the directors. In my view, that ship has sailed a while back as per Alan's comment now.

  Paul Kane: (10:53) I must leave this call now - thank all.

  Jonathan Robinson: (10:53) @Alan. Agree. We can open up long since decided issues.

  Greg Shatan: (10:53) Can?!

  matthw shears: (10:54) typo I assume

  Jonathan Robinson: (10:54) Cannot. Apologies


  Jonathan Robinson: (10:54) Meant to say can't

  Jonathan Robinson: (10:55) The point here revolves around the selection of the chair and the term limits on the chair

  andrew sullivan: (10:55) I am afraid I must drop to go to the IETF Trust meeting.  Thank you all for the resolution about the IPR matters!

  Avri Doria: (10:55) support term lmits.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:56) wHAT IS THE FINAL WORDING

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:56) What is proposed term limit for Chair ?

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:56) how many years?

  matthw shears: (10:56) I thnk that is reasonable Lise - butt agree with Greg that term limitation is key - not sure why there would be a diffierence between nomcom and icann directors

  Avri Doria: (10:56) 3?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:56) tHERE SHOULD BE A LIMIT

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:56) I would sggest same term limit in line with NomCom director

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:57) whatever it is

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (10:57) 6 years then

  Greg Shatan: (10:57) Proposed footnote to ICANN in Community Agreement: CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community.  At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community and ICANN has been included in this draft.  ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (10:57) 2 x 3 yr term?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:57) 6 years is too long

  Jonathan Robinson: (10:57) 3 + 3 is conssitent with Nom Com directors

  matthw shears: (10:57) the issue is consecutive terms - limit to 2x3 for both nomcom and icann directors

  Greg Shatan: (10:57) Agreew matthw

  Jonathan Robinson: (10:58) @Sam. Term limit is not on directors but on term as chair

  Greg Shatan: (10:59) Term limit for chair make sense.  But I hear Sam's concern regarding board members.

  Avri Doria: (10:59) i thought we were talking about term limits for chair

  Jonathan Robinson: (10:59) Term limit is only being proposed for chair

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (10:59) I need to drop off for another appointment

  Avri Doria: (10:59) me too

  Greg Shatan: (10:59) Is this an "Emily Littella" moment? Apologies for obsolete culture-specific reference...

  Samantha Eisner: (10:59) FOr chair, no issue

  matthw shears: (11:00) right - its the issue for the chair

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (11:00) resolution on number of years?  2x3 -- 6?

  Jonathan Robinson: (11:01) My audio dropped.

  Jonathan Robinson: (11:01) I think you have it OK Lise

  Jonathan Robinson: (11:02) My only point was that Greg's point may be one for the NomCom specifications for candiddates not necessarily for the CWG bylaws comment

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (11:03) Can someone send me the Matthew/Greg proposal?

  Greg Shatan: (11:04) Correct, JR.

  Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (11:04) As I understand where we are -- 6 year term limit for chair and selection of chair is majority of board with one NomCom and one ICANN director (nnon-President) approving

  Greg Shatan: (11:05) Proposed footnote to ICANN in Community Agreement: CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community.  At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community and ICANN has been included in this draft.  ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.

  Lise Fuhr: (11:05) @sharon yes

  Greg Shatan: (11:06) Thank you to Sharon for the wording.  Once againg, I am a mere vessel.

  matthw shears: (11:06) I think that is it Sharon

  Greg Shatan: (11:06) +1 to matthw

  Greg Shatan: (11:09) Nothing to report from the Client Committee.

  Samantha Eisner: (11:09) thanks Sharon and Greg for that language

  Chuck Gomes (RySG): (11:10) Thanks all.

  Avri Doria: (11:11) thanks bye

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (11:11) Thanks al - bye

  Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (11:11) by all

  Greg Shatan: (11:11) Goodbye, everybody!

  Lise Fuhr: (11:11) Bye and thank you

  • No labels