Hi all, To prepare for our vote on the CCWG-IG motion this Thursday, here's where we stand. I'd like to thank both Rafik and Wolf-Ulrich for their input last week. Rafik and I exchanged emails again this week and I believe we are in sync. As the maker of the motion: 1. I accept the proposed change of the withdrawal deadline from ICANN 60 to ICANN 61. 2. I agree that we need some additional clarity about the expected timeline leading up to ICANN 61, so the transition can be as seamless as possible. I suggest we target a GNSO Council meeting mid-way between ICANN 60 and ICANN 61 as the opportunity for the GNSO Council to review the proposed replacement structure. I'm also support acknowledging further that the GNSO Council expects a replacement to be created by ICANN 61. 3. With the extension, ICANN 61 needs to be the clear date for withdrawal. If we leave wiggle room in the motion, then the work of finding a replacement will not have the urgency or attention it requires. We are extending the date to allow for the necessary work, but I think that new date needs to be firm. We have all seen how, at ICANN, "work fills the time and space provided." We need to avoid further slippage and set clear expectations for ourselves and for the other Chartering Organizations. As such, I've attached updated motion language that I believe addresses the points raised to date. James, as the seconder of the motion, do you concur or have any concerns? Regards, Keith