Dear Co-Chairs, to put it into my usually charming bedside manner, now that Mr Strickling has handed us vital parts of our anatomy, are you now going to start listening? I already said and wrote since Singapore that we are going about this the wrong way, and we should toss all this out and start from fresh. I still believe that to be true. Never mind the process, which has been invalidated close to capture. As you are aware I will not be able to make it to the meeting today, which I am on record objecting to, unless SA222 has WiFi so I would want to delay the discussion of the impact to one of the F2Fs in BA. However, I for the world of me can not understand why someone would suggest to bring in an uncharted third party in to comment on our eventual proposal. Other than admitting to Mr Strickling that this CCWG does not have the required understanding. I agree that there are mainly functionaries on this CCWG, and of course the lobbyists of the gBusinesses have no interest to look at this so even asking the gRegistries to have their technical/operational staff support their charted members is going to be a waste of time. But, as I have written and said before, it's the ccTLDs that matter. Not only for me but also because there is nothing in the CWG/CCWG for these. And that (for the wannabes around here: the removal of the one, albeit theoretical, safeguard against arbitrary actions agains ccTLD Managers) as much as not knowing the answers to fundamental questions, WILL have an impact on Security and Stability of the DNS. Probably more affecting the Local rather than Global Internet. So I STRONGLY urge that the ccTLD Managers represented as charted members and participants, if any, sit down with or without the gRegistries and look at this. And why on Earth the SSAC? What does it have to do with anything? In particular ccTLDs? and their last paper showed a blessed ignorance about what's happening inside ccTLDs. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini