Steve, In any case, the stress test 21 as written does not use the correct terminology and assumes procedures which are not described, and does not incorporate the Framework of Interpretation Principles. The only objection to a revocation and transfer request comes from the incumbent manager. If the manager gives informed, voluntary consent the process can proceed. If not, that's it, unless there is substantial misconduct, where the IANA Function Manager can revoke on own initiative, even, as last resort. There is no consideration of objections of Interested Parties or Significantly Interested Parties. Hence no awaiting the bottom-up consensus decision of affected stakeholders. There are no existing accountability measures. It is not the community that can challenge, as no third party is involved, only the incumbent manager. The proposed measures are all retro-active. The Framework of Interpretation Principles must be implemented as Policy binding on the IANA Function Manager. We can then look at what we can propose when they don't abide. I have issues with 19 as well (never mind the terminology). Have I overlooked how the IANA Function Manager is supposed to be shielded from law suits? It is not my subject matter expertise as it pertains to gTLDs but I would assume that the jurisdiction is specified in gTLD agreements. [...] Again, this call is not going to take place at 11:00 UTC, though it is starting to look like an accountability issue how the scheduling was handled. el