Hi, I've been talking over the proposed bylaws text with my colleagues on the IAB IANA evolution program, and we're wondering about some things. Section 1.1.d is apparently the section that got added in order to deal with the CCWG worry that the various agreements already in place might not be in conformance with the clarified Mission. We think we get what most of these are for. 1.1.d.ii.A is there to ensure the registry and registrar agreements automatically conform to the Mission. 1.1.d.ii.B is there to ensure the ICANN-RIR agreement(s) and the ICANN-IETF agreement automatically conform. 1.1.d.ii.C covers the root zone maintainer. 1.1.d.ii.D covers the ICANN-PTI agreement. and 1.1.d.ii.F permits the renewals without those renewals being subject to IRP or any of the other new powers. But we have some questions: 1. We (the IAB) earlier wanted to frame the Mission partly in terms of the existing MoU, and the argument was that the Mission couldn't reasonably contain a reference to an outside document like that. Yet here are those references again. What's the difference that now makes this ok? 2. Several of these documents are not yet written or else haven't yet come into effect. How are we supposed to evaluate whether they're ok? For instance, item D is only about the Naming Function Contract, but the ICG proposal says that PTI is going to do all the IANA functions (two of them on subcontract from ICANN). Not only is item D not yet written, but as far as I know the counterparty (PTI, which is maybe going to be named something else) doesn't even exist yet. How can that agreement be evaluated? What if it is inconsistent with the ICANN-IETF MoU? This is going to be a fundamental bylaw, so it'll be rather hard to fix. 3. The CCWG's proposal, in Annex 05, at line 48, had a note to drafters that outlined the pieces that needed clarifications when the legal drafting happened. The clarifications seemed to be to ensure that certain agreements would be maintained. So what is the reason the strategic plan and operating plan have been included here in this sectiob 1.1.d? By including that, effectively anything at all -- no matter whether consistent with the Mission -- can be adopted by putting it into the strategic or operating plan (or a renewal of one of those plans, under clause F). It would really help us in our evaluation to understand why these provisions are needed and why they're consistent with the CCWG recommendations. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com