October 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP3 Meeting | 8 October
by Brenda Brewer Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-3 meeting on 8 October will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/VKJYAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM - Leon to move bullet points on conflict of interest to SO/AC accountability document. ACTION ITEM: Staff to research papers documenting meetings between Board management and governments relationships. - Are analysis drawn directly from comments? If so, should indicate which comments. Are options put up by drafter of analysis? ACTION ITEM: Penholders to clarify whether options are suggested in comments. ACTION ITEM - Check with WP2 how SO/ACs could be referred to IRP in context of community empowerment. Notes Review of drafts Diversity Presentation of the analysis document produced by Carlos. See wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56141553/WP3%20Diversity.d… onDate=1444293034000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56141553/WP3%20Diversity.d… nDate=1444293034000&api=v2 Feedback: - Bullet points on conflict of interest may be more appropriate in SO/AC accountability paper. ACTION ITEM - Leon to move bullet points on conflict of interest to SO/AC accountability document. - On inclusion of diversity into ATRT - is silence assent? Splitting it up in two votes may not be representative. --> Worthwhile to consider asking ATRT alumni if this would overburden work. ---> It depends on work in front of ATRT time at a particular time. There was a short timeframe for narrow focus. ATRT2 had additional burden to look at implementation. ATRT should be in position to ensure that this is done by itself or ad hoc group as required. Staff accountability Presentation of the analysis document - see <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56141553/Staff%20Accountab… %20tool.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1444292666000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56141553/Staff%20Accountab… 20tool.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1444292666000&api=v2 Feedback: - It might be worth looking at Board to examine if not worth analyzing at all or as part of WS1. - Comment for more transparency on Board management and governments relationships. Fadi suggested that there is a catalogue of public meetings. Having this evidence may address this comment. ACTION ITEM: Staff to research papers documenting meetings between Board management and governments relationships. - Are analysis drawn directly from comments? If so, should indicate which comments. Are options put up by drafter of analysis? ACTION ITEM: Penholders to clarify whether options are suggested in comments. SO/AC Accountability Presentation of the analysis document - see <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP3+Documents?preview=/56… ccountability%20PC2.docx> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP3+Documents?preview=/56… countability%20PC2.docx Feedback: - No mention of comment by Jan-Aart Scholte who suggested SO/ACs be subject to IRP. This is not reflected in document. ---> This will be added. - Note structural reviews are conducted as two-part process. First goes to stakeholder then independent examiner. It is a good way moving forward. --> This two step process could be built into that proposal. - Level of detail should be added to structural reviews. Accountability to whom has answer in second report. It is not only to participants but also to community they are designed to serve. Fine-tuning of question may be added if we need to reinforce but should not reopen the question. For question 2 - Jan Aart Scholte's suggestion was helpful. IRP could watch the watchers. - Ambiguity around "community" generates confusion. If message is fine-tuned, objection will be removed. Transparency is not accountability. - Clarify that we did not get concrete options. ---> This clarification will be added. - Proposal about SO/ACs act in community empowerment mechanisms should be referable to IRP. If existing SO/AC refuse inclusion of new SO/AC there would be no way to hold this SO/AC to account ACTION ITEM - Check with WP2 how SO/ACs could be referred to IRP in context of community empowerment. - Make sure not to forget two bullet points flagged in diversity discussion. - If IRP commenced asserting that it was not within jurisdiction to bring it, it would be a valid defense. Within IRP there is no new action that we would need to take to enact that. - We need to offer specifications as to how proposals will be held to account. Bits of stress tests should be incorporated into discussion of SO/AC accountability. - We should also consider whether something other than (or before) an adversarial arbitration should be put in place when an SO/AC accountability issue arises. Rather than just jumping to an IRP. Next Steps Penholders to include suggestions. Oct 09 - deadline to complete documents Oct 12 - Last comments to be included for Oct 13 call. A.O.B /

1 0

Fwd: Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October - Shared Materials
by Mathieu Weill Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

Dear colleagues, During the call yesterday I mentioned that we would be providing updates on our progress in two different calls : - the transition facilitation program call, which was attended by ntia (Larry Strickling), ICANN (Fadi, Steve Crocker amongst others) and leaders of the various transition related groups (numbering, ietf, cwg, ...) - a community leader call, attended by so/ac and constituency leaders. You will find attached the set of slides that was prepared by ICANN and presented during the calls. I have insisted in our group's strong commitment and involvement, and introduced the potential timelines we have started discussing. A couple of key points from these calls are : - the status of the transition program as a whole is qualified as "solid orange bordering red "(based on the 30 sept 2016 deadline) - the community leader call will reconvene on Monday to assess whether extra time could be devoted in Dublin to advancing our work effectively, given the very high priority. Best, Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style Début du message transféré : > > Objet: Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October - Shared Materials > > Dear SO, AC, SG, C, RALO Chairs, Chairs of the CCWG, CWG, ICG, ICANN Board Members: > > Thank you again for your participation on today's call. > > As requested, attached are the slides presented today and the chat history for your reference. > > In a separate note, I will suggest a call early next week for us to continue a discussion on the Dublin schedule. > > Best regards, David > > > > David A. Olive > Vice President, Policy Development Support > General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul > Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 > Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 > Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 > Email: david.olive(a)icann.org > www.icann.org >

16 33

Comparison of independent review processes
by Gregory, Holly Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

Dear CCWG Co-chairs, Members and Participants, Attached please find a comparison of key characteristics of (1) ICANN's current IRP, (2) the IRP under the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal (in the context of the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model), and (3) the IRP and MEM set forth in the Board Proposal as requested in L.A. We shared this with Jones Day and ICANN Legal in advance so that they could provide any corrections regarding our understanding of the IRP and MEM as set forth in the Board Proposal. Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary Sent with Good (www.good.com) ________________________________ From: Grapsas, Rebecca Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:45:50 PM To: Gregory, Holly Subject: **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

2 2

Message from ICANN Board re Designator Model
by Steve Crocker Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

CCWG, We appreciate the continued work that the CCWG is doing to consider the public comments received on its second draft report. Following the Los Angeles F2F we have heard suggestions that a Designator model relying on California statutes may be a replacement for the Sole Member model that was in the second draft report. To be clear, the concerns that the Board raised on the Sole Member model still apply to a Designator model. The Designator model still introduces a new legal structure with powers that are intrinsically beyond the structure we have been using. We understand that many believe it is possible to constrain these powers in order to provide established protections, accountability and thresholds: This is unproven territory and will require more detail and time to understand and test the impact on our bedrock multistakeholder balance. Further, it is unclear that this would represent the full multistakeholder community because we do not know yet which SO/ACs will join now or later. Moreover, the same community accountability issues present in the Sole Member are present in the Designator model. Steve del Bianco’s constructive suggestion over the weekend that the Board could commit to a future governance structure review triggered by key factors seems like a good path forward. This can be enshrined in a new fundamental bylaw that would require the holding of a future governance structure review if SOs and ACs agree to kick off that review. We are all in complete agreement on the objective of enforcement of the five community powers, with new/stronger mechanisms for board removal if/when necessary. Let’s focus on finalizing the details on these consensus elements to enable implementation and a successful transition. Steve Crocker for the ICANN Board of Directors

29 64

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP1 Meeting | 8 October
by Brenda Brewer Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-1 meeting on 8 October will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/Ip5YAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Notes Notes/Action Items These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Community Forum LA and mailing-list discussions were incorporated. Areas of consensus: There is substantial support for function and purpose of forum including petition, discussion, decision process. Comment that we need to highlight multistakeholder nature. General support for broader participation beyond ICANN. Areas needing refinement: how would forum be triggered? Comment that it should be standing called on necessity. Comment about need for adhoc meeting, virtual meetings, questions about timing etc. Comments about complexity of issues. On composition/representation, the following was raised: would individuals be selected from slate of candidates, would there be form of NomCom, whether it should be modeled on CCWG, whether participation by SO/ACs should be mandatory. Should the form have standing in terms of output and should it be a mandatory part of community powers process. There was concern about contradictory input - how would it be processed and what would implications be. Suggestion that forum would need to be moderated by neutral person (moderation). Concerns about timescales: would some of them take greater time to resolve? Some queried whether forum needs funding. In what way would findings contribute to decision-making. Questions regarding relationship with accountability forum proposed by W. Currie. Would it be separate. Areas of divergence: Biggest area was what the role the forum should have in decision-making outcomes and what role should it play. Options for consideration: Based on LA discussion: community forum could be used as a tool for reaching consensus. With regards to standing/ad hoc - we will have to recognize that might be standing committee called upon. We might be faced with situation where multiple ongoing processes. Composition/representation: it might make sense to model forum with representation but we may want to give it consideration (appointment, terms, charter?). Standing/outcome: outcomes of forum could have specific weight in deliberations of SO/ACs. Moderation/outcomes: consensus and discussion model may be needed. Timescales may depend on issue/challenge in question. Feedback: - Concerns we may be complicating this. It is not meant to create institutionalized, representationalized place. Original design was to have an open forum before decision-making. It is valuable for number of reasons. Process as part of dialogue. - Agree with previous comment as long as keep decision-making process of second draft. Forum needs to be convened through telephonic methodology. If we change to consensus-driven approach - forum has particular purpose we need to preserve. - Agree with comments from Jordan. Forum is mandatory for exchange of views. It will be a preparation to come to closure. It is not a decision-making body. We want it simple but it does not mean we don't want it organized. Discussion/forum is mandatory. We have to stress it is mandatory. - We are not giving specifics on who should go there and what happens if does not go there. - If discussion is not mandatory, it will have implications - e.g. individual Board member removal. Conclusion: dialogue comes first. It will not be made decision-making. For Dublin: whether we stick with that model or suggest something else. Suggest answering questions. Community Mechanism 51 comments submitted. Areas of consensus: support and appreciation for enforceability of community powers, agreement it is improvement compared to first draft, consensus we should be as restrained as possible in organizational restructure to create powers, consensus to organize mechanisms along same lines as community as well as importance of community deliberation. Needing clarification: Need for more information to confirm support for model, call for simplicity, must be minimum number of SO/ACs. Areas of concerns/divergence: whether community should take decisions through formal voting or through establishing consensus, voting allocation, composition of community within modal and duality of GAC, changes requires in ICANN to create model, proposal for narrowed powers could be provided for binding arbitration to enforce fundamental bylaws instead of model. Options for consideration: continue to evolve model while maintaining membership, explore how maximum legal enforcement can be achieved, decide which powers can be enforced in a MEM based model if sufficient to meet community powers and other requirements including specific assertions, move away from voting and towards consensus, voting allocations more in line with balance appointments to ICANN board, reconsider role of ACs in model's community forum, consider a fixed understanding or who will vote or make decisions in community forum before decisions are made by CCWG. Feedback: - Confusion about percentages. --> They come from tool. - Areas of consensus/divergence match what saw in public comment. Present simple cases. - We have to replace percentages with numbers for comments in each direction. - Need to identify issues that can be resolved by WP and which need to be resolved by CCWG in Dublin. - Three ACs may not participate in voting - this generates threshold issues. Voting means you have advisory that does not have decision-making power. Work with consensus. --> There are two reasons why you would need voting: 1) different levels of influence; 2) allow each decision-maker to split decision. If we don't need either of those, we can move to consensus - I.E. each SO/AC uses own processes to make decision and says what it is. If everyone is in line with decision, powers gets exercised. - We can add absolute numbers. It is important to make a decision of what path we want to go down. Support suggestion to replace consensus with voting. We will need to understand which path we are going down: fixing model or moving to model(s) and exploring those. - No problem with SO/AC making decision with own process. How do we meld conclusions from community. We don't have established mechanism. - Not all SO/ACs would sign up to vote in model - they would be left out and letting views known in community forum is not sufficient. Seeking methodology where no one is left out is what we should go for. Do we require unanimity/abstentions? ---> Are there other key items that need to be determined? - Include in doc --> For membership or Designator models the following points need clarification: . SO and AC participation in the decision-making mechanism;. Voting or consensus basis;. Consideration of advice from those SOs and ACs opting out of the decision-making mechanism;. Maintaining balance of power to prevent capture of/by those opting-in to the decision-making mechanism;. Factoring in conflicts of interest and fiduciary or other responsibilities (such as public interest) into the decision-making design;. Ensuring accountability of the new structure to the broader community and the global public interest. - In favor of consensus instead voting. For some powers we need full consensus - for others we need objectives. We have to discuss abstention. Conclusion: send any additional points on list. Fundamental and Regular Bylaws No feedback. Individual Director Removal First discussion highlighted strong divergence of opinion: SO/AC appointed Directors make decision to remove director; removal for cause/standards of behavior; multiple removals. Options: explore combination of standard vs number of decision-makers, limit the number and stagger time periods for individual Board removal to mitigate "batching" Feedback: - Collegiality is important. What are difficulties? Budget Discussion moved to Oct 9. Any Other Work required to meet 12 October deadline Tease out key conclusions for Tuesday call. Doc 1: areas of agreement/concern/divergence/options. Doc 2 options by each section with priority Decision whether further meeting required on 9 Oct Yes AOB Documents Presented <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MaN10VchqTWCDyB8AY6yAy1SRSwF9bJEdDopVu5…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MaN10VchqTWCDyB8AY6yAy1SRSwF9bJEdDopVu5… (google doc for Community Forum) <https://docs.google.com/document/d/12dzqIffVu9z--0UYvEji6KdIa-U3wHcrXS0E9lr…> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12dzqIffVu9z--0UYvEji6KdIa-U3wHcrXS0E9lr… (google doc for CMSM) <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56139298/Power%20-%20RIB%2… f%20PC2%20DraftR1.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444288964298&api=v2> Power - RIB members- analysis of PC2 DraftR1.pdf

1 0

Schedule of CCWG AND ITS WORKING PARTY
by Kavouss Arasteh Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

Dear Brenda, Is is possible that you kindly provide a consolidated table indicating all meetings of CCWG, its Working Parties 1,2 and 4 , including Schedule of CCWG AT Dublin in oprder to facilitae the tasks of the people tzo arrange their agenda Regards Kavouss

5 5

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP2 Meeting | 7 October
by Brenda Brewer Oct. 7, 2015

Oct. 7, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-2 meeting on 7 October will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/6Z5YAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. WP2 Issues for Dublin Briefing (PowerPoint presentation) - Principles: 2nd Draft Report Paragraph 187: Enumerated powers and prohibition on regulation to be clarified to ensure that ICANN has authority and responsibility to enforce (i) voluntary commitments contained in TLD applications (e.g., PIC Specifications) and (ii) Consensus Policy. Note also misc. wording suggestions. Authors: Greg Shatan and David McAuley 2nd Draft Report Paragraph Paragraphs 218-219: language regarding "consumer trust and choice" and discuss AoC language regarding new gTLDS now contained in AoC review text at Paragraph 566. Becky 2nd Draft Report Paragraphs 205-206, 224-225 regarding private sector leadership. ALAC comment regarding inclusion of end users in description of private sector and push back from certain governments regarding retention of current bylaws language. Authors: David McAuley and Kavouss Arasteh. 2nd Draft Report Mission, Commitments & Core Values references to and formulation of "global public interest." Alan Greenberg and Kavouss Arasteh. 2nd Draft Report Paragraph 225: removal of limitation on consultation with GAC to Advice that is consistent with Commitments and Core Values. Becky Burr. IRP and RFR: Funding, costs, accessibility, independence Bruce Tonkin: @Becky - the Board was not specifically against the cost model proposed by the CCWG. Our point was that for community disputes we would go beyond funding the cost of the panel - but also help with the costs of any external counsel that the community might need., We were a 1B on this topic not a 2. Scope - Reconciliation of expert panel conclusions; "fundamentally irrational" decision; Community/single member accountability Standard - abuse of discretion vs. de novo Standing: Individual SOs/ACs/constituencies without community support; "community" IRPs where minority does not support and "Permissive" approach vs. abuse prevention Abuse: Require participation in PDP for standing (also arises in RFR context); fee shifting for frivolous actions; other abuse mitigation? Prompt action to establish CCWG sub-group to work on details. BB - The next step for IRP is for the community to roll up its sleeves to work out the details for implementation. GS - Unclear if this is meant to replace the current IRP or be in parallel? BB- Reform/replace current process. BB - MEM and IRP - this is an area for discussion if two separate processes are necessary. CD - Board thought that a community IRP was different because the expertise required might be different and that ICANN would fund it completely vs the commercial IRP. AG - Is MEM for standard bylaws also. BB - This was not considered in the ICANN proposal. It is clear to the CCWG that this should be included (standard Bylaws). CD - There are 3 processes - standard commercial IRP, standard Bylaws issues and Fundamental Bylaws..And the Board would fund community actions. CD, BTonkin and BB to work on this issue collaboratively. GS - We need to consider all input including the Board's. BB - agreed. Becky Burr: i will seek input from the board on whether, and if so why, they think separate panels are necessary. B. Tonkin - The Board separated these thinking that commercial complaints should be handled differently from community complaints (rules, costs etc.). BB - should not differentiate based on complainant but rather on type of complaints. Regardless from an efficiency point of view a single panel would see best for all complaints. Asha Hemrajani: One thing to remember though that the MEM panel is NOT an "advisory IRP" but very much binding Becky Burr: confused Asha, are you saying that the Board is not agreeing to make IRPs binding?? Asha Hemrajani: @Becky no, both are binding Staff - Schedule for Dublin still fluid trying to adapt to CCWG needs - as such we should wait for Monday before taking any time commitments. Documents Presented * <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56139497/PC2%20-%20Section… laws_.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444251339803&api=v2> PC2 - Section 4 -Fundamental Bylaws_.pdf (sample template) * <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56139497/WP2%20Dublin%20An… sion=1&modificationDate=1444251362799&api=v2> WP2 Dublin Analysis Topics.pptx

1 0

Community not sufficiently representative???
by Jeff Neuman Oct. 7, 2015

Oct. 7, 2015

All, I do not post too often on this list, but have been trying to follow along in the discussion. The recent comments by the ICANN Board about the lack of representativeness of the current SO/AC structure to justify the single member model have rubbed me the wrong way and I think I have figured out why. All contracted parties agree to follow Consensus Policies, which are defined as those policies developed in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws. According to the Agreements, "Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed shall be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of Internet stakeholders, including the operators of gTLDs." See Exhibit A of new TLD Agreements. If the ICANN Board is basically saying that the community is not sufficiently representative for purposes of holding ICANN accountable, then how can they ever argue that the community is sufficiently representative to produce a consensus of Internet stakeholders for the purpose of developing Consensus Policies. I have never heard the Board before make that argument...that it could not take a proposed policy and impose it on the contracted parties because they did not believe the community was sufficiently representative. The fact is we DO have about 10 Consensus Policies for which the Board DID determine that the policies produced by a sufficiently representative community. You shouldn't be able to argue that the community is sufficiently representative for one purpose (Consensus Policies), but not for the purposes of holding itself accountable P.S. For any future Consensus Policy, the Board has opened up a new area of argument if a contracted party does not want to follow it...namely that the Consensus Policy was not developed through a sufficiently representative policy process. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

6 7

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP3 Meeting | 7 October
by Brenda Brewer Oct. 7, 2015

Oct. 7, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-3 meeting on 7 October will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/UqJYAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Documents Presented * <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56140370/PC2%20-%20Section… laws_.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1444244605640&api=v2> PC2 - Section 4 -Fundamental Bylaws_.pdf (example only, Zuck model) * <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56140370/RecommendationsSO… ificationDate=1444244622699&api=v2> RecommendationsSOACacct.pdf * <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56140370/PC2%20tool%20-%20… on=1&modificationDate=1444244652993&api=v2> PC2 tool - 24 SeptBTv2.xlsx Notes GS to chair the meeting with LS Diversity - 23 comments received - 19 supportive of fostering diversity - 10 with issues Staff Accountability - 9 comments received - 9 supportive - 4 with issues SO/AC accountability - 15 comments received - 12 supportive - 3 with issues This did not include the responses that were generally supportive of the proposal Volunteers for using the Zuck model for comment analysis Diversity - Carlos Raul, Staff accountability - Jeff Neuman, LS SO/AC accountability - LS, JS GS - we need to work on two tracks 1 - analysis the public comments and 2 - (parallel) dev and revision of the sections of the document relating to these topics.. KD - Walk-through of the Zuck model. GS - The DelBianco addition to the Zuck model is a final section that is more subjective evaluations and comments. GS - The critical element for this WP is SOAC accountability given the current state of discussion in the CCWG. General discussion of SO/AC accountability. GS - best to adjourn now and allow volunteers to proceed with detailed comment analysis. AOB - none

1 0

is there a CCWG-A 2.1 being prepared?
by Salaets, Ken Oct. 7, 2015

Oct. 7, 2015

Dear Co-chairs: I realize that there are multiple paths being suggested and debated re an accountability proposal, but I don't recall hearing whether the WPs are expected to develop a revised 2nd Report for review prior to Dublin. I think it would be of particular value if you were able to circulate a preliminary redline version of the report highlighting various text/topics that were the subject of the various public and board comments. It would be even more valuable if said document could categorize the relative nature of the comments, for example, text/topics: a) supported by most commenters but which may be due for minor improvements/adjustments/clarifications, or b) supported by a majority of commenters with conditions/caveats and, hence, may be in need of improvements/adjustments/clarifications, or c) which were questioned by a majority of commenters and, therefore, have been deemed candidates for major improvements/adjustments/clarifications, or perhaps even deletion. A fourth category might be the flagging of omissions/gaps/analysis which, if addressed or added, would help clarify and thereby improve text/topics in the 2nd Report. At a minimum, such a document it would provide a visual snapshot of where things stand relative to the latest draft report, similar to the chart provided by Fadi. More importantly, it would help preserve the substantial work represented by the 2nd Report as the baseline for the eventual CCWG-A proposal. It might also help rein in various email discussions which, while important, may not be particularly germane to the immediate task and could therefore be relocated to a Dublin pub (wink). Thanks much, Ken

1 0