August 2016 - CWG-Stewardship

Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
by Greg Shatan Aug. 12, 2016

Aug. 12, 2016

All, As discussed, the following is the proposed footnote to accompany the inclusion of ICANN (in square brackets to indicate the non-final nature of that proposal) as the potential signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. This will need to be finalized in the next 1-2 hours so that the documents can be put out for public comment today. No objections were heard on today's call. Any violent objections or genius revisions should be sent in reply to this email. *CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. At the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community and ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by CWG-Stewardship.* Greg

10 16

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Footnote to inclusion of ICANN as potential signatory on behalf of Names Community
by Kavouss Arasteh Aug. 12, 2016

Aug. 12, 2016

Dear All The idea that ICANN SIGN ON BEHALF OF Names Community was legally wrong There must be 1. Names community establish an unincorporated associated 2. That association could sign on behalf names community or 3. That association e could delegate its authority to a third legal entity to sign on its behalf You over simplifying the matter and propose CUT & PASTE approach If CWG on its legal existence as established by its charter decides to request ICANN to sign the Co-Chairs need to write a request the draft of which must be approved by CWG first in a call and second on mailing list then sending that request to ICANN and ICANN formally reply to that in writing. That is the process NO CUT & PASTE However, the formulation that I proposed is a mid way between the two and has legal validity Regards Kavouss 2016-08-12 8:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>: > What is wrong with my formulation > Yes CWG Client did that but CWG did not > kavouss > > > 2016-08-12 7:49 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>: > >> We made the request Kavous, I was even the one that raised the question >> and the request was sent to ICANN legal by the cwg client. >> >> Regards >> >> Sent from my LG G4 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> On 11 Aug 2016 10:49 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Seun >>> YOU MISSED MY Argument >>> It is said At the request of CWG.... >>> We have not MADE SUCH REQUEST BY cwg. >>> It was fabricated as such >>> I disagree with that >>> No formal request made to ICANN and no reply received from the Board >>> There was no Board's Member at the meeting and staff does not have such >>> right to put in Our mouth a text . >>> I disagree >>> However, I proposed the following formulation . >>> At the request MADE AT CWG CALL ,,,.,,, ICANN ..... >>> It means that the request is limited as being made at that call only >>> That does not change the substance but reflects the reality >>> Kavouss >>> >>> 2016-08-11 23:35 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>: >>> >>>> "...*ICANN** has indicated that it could serve as the counterparty to >>>> the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community*..." >>>> >>>> I did not stay all through the meeting so may have missed that part >>>> where ICANN confirmed this, It's good to know. FWIW, I believe Greg's text >>>> accurately captures the current status. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> On 11 Aug 2016 17:16, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> As discussed, the following is the proposed footnote to accompany the >>>>> inclusion of ICANN (in square brackets to indicate the non-final nature of >>>>> that proposal) as the potential signatory to the Community Agreement on >>>>> behalf of the Names Community. >>>>> >>>>> This will need to be finalized in the next 1-2 hours so that the >>>>> documents can be put out for public comment today. No objections were >>>>> heard on today's call. Any violent objections or genius revisions should >>>>> be sent in reply to this email. >>>>> >>>>> *CWG-Stewardship is considering the appropriate entity to be the >>>>> signatory to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names Community. At >>>>> the request of the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN has indicated that it could serve >>>>> as the counterparty to the Community Agreement on behalf of the Names >>>>> Community and ICANN has been included in this draft. ICANN (or another >>>>> counterparty) would be subject to process and criteria as determined by >>>>> CWG-Stewardship.* >>>>> >>>>> Greg >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>>> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>>> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>> >>>> >>> >

1 0

[Announcement] ICANN Announces Incorporation of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI)
by Yuko Green Aug. 12, 2016

Aug. 12, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-08-11-en ICANN Announces Incorporation of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) ICANN today announced that the incorporation documents for the "Post-Transition IANA" organization have been filed and received by the California Secretary of State under the name Public Technical Identifiers (which will now be referred to as PTI). With this filing and receipt, PTI is now formed as a nonprofit public benefit corporation and controlled affiliate of ICANN. The PTI Incorporation Documents were drafted to reflect the recommendations of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) proposal, as provided to the ICANN Board and transmitted to NTIA on 10 March 2016. PTI was formed to perform the naming-related IANA functions under contract with ICANN. The PTI Articles were posted for public comment on 1 July 2016. At its meeting on 9 August 2016, the ICANN Board approved the PTI Articles and directed ICANN staff to move forward with the incorporation of PTI. Although PTI now exists as a legal entity, it is not yet performing any work. PTI will not perform any services under the IANA Functions Contract with NTIA. PTI will only start performing the IANA functions upon the successful completion of the transition. At that point, PTI will perform the IANA functions pursuant to an IANA Naming Functions Contract with ICANN (released for public comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/iana-naming-function-agreement-2016-0…> from 10 August - 9 September 2016) and the subcontracts with ICANN for the performance of the numbering and protocol parameter services. For purposes of coherence of the IANA functions and overall operational logistics, the ICG proposal requires that the performance of the IANA numbering and protocol parameter functions be subcontracted to PTI. These subcontracting agreements are drafted and will be executed between PTI and ICANN so that they are in effect upon transition. The proposed Articles of Incorporation are the first of the various governance documents that will be necessary for PTI to be put into operation. In the coming weeks, ICANN will also be posting the final versions of the PTI Bylaws, Conflict of Interest Policy, Board Code of Conduct, and Expected Standards of Behavior. Each of these documents has already been subject to public comment, and will be submitted for ICANN and PTI Board approvals (where appropriate) before the transition. All efforts surrounding the Incorporation of PTI are designed to meet one of key the recommendations in the ICG proposal: the formation of a new legal entity to perform the three IANA functions. All implementation-planning efforts can be tracked at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation. Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 E-mail: yuko.green(a)icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #87 - 11 August 2016
by Brenda Brewer Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #87 on 11 August 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/GwqbAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * ACTION: staff to update the timeline to reflect the new name of PTI " Public Technical Identifiers" * ACTION: CWG (Paul) to inform ICANN that SLEs are final. * ACTION (CWG): IANA Budget process and assessment to be reviewed by the group and discussed further in next CWG call. * ACTION (Chuck): provide language and edits from Kavouss and Olivier to Sidley * ACTION (Sidley): incorporate changes suggested by the group in the comment letter on the PTI bylaws * ACTION (Lise): send Matthew/Greg proposals to Sidley * ACTION (Sidley): incorporate changes suggested by the group in the comment letter on the PTI bylaws Notes 1. Status update / objectives of the call * CWG comment letter submitted for PTI governance documents * Several calls for IANA IPR * Goal to prepare comments for PTI bylaws * Goal to prepare IANA IPR documents for public comment * IANA IPR topic will be the 1st topic on the agenda, then agenda will resume 3.1. IANA IPR * Goal is to release IANA IPR agreements for public comments today. * 3 agreements: - IP assignment agreement (btw ICANN and Trust) - License agreement (btw Trust and ICANN) - Community agreement (btw the trust and 3 OCs) * The 3 OCs have formed the CCG: Community Coordination Group for coordination with the trust. * CCG nomination process to be determined by the communities (preferably prior to the transition) * Signing party representing the community needs to be determined - * Group agrees to send out 3 agreements for public comment today, and recommends putting ICANN as signing party representing the community (if ICANN agrees to it today, and with footnote to define conditions for ICANN to represent the community yet to be determined). If ICANN cannot approve, the topic will be left blank, with a note "to be determined". 2. Implementation update * Staff update provided by Trang - PTI Articles of Incorporation approved by ICANN Board - Incorporation of PTI in progress - Staff report on governing docs public comments to be released shortly - Subcontracting agreements being finalized - Naming function contract agreement is out for public comment - CSC is complete - Services agreement will be shared with the community as soon as possible ACTION: staff to update the timeline to reflect the new name of PTI " Public Technical Identifiers" * Names SLEs update by Paul Kane - Work group has approved the SLEs (document circulated earlier this week) and seeks approval of the CWG - CWG approves the SLEs. ACTION: CWG (Paul) to inform ICANN that SLEs are final. * DT-O update by Chuck Gomes - Process proposal + proposed language for the PTI bylaws distributed yesterday - DT-O has made an assessment of the alignment of the proposed IANA Budget Development and Approval Process with the CWG proposal ACTION (CWG): IANA Budget process and assessment to be reviewed by the group and discussed further in next CWG call. - Group reviewed language for PTI bylaws ACTION (Chuck): provide language and edits from Kavouss and Olivier to Sidley ACTION (Sidley): incorporate changes suggested by the group in the comment letter on the PTI bylaws - Treasury structure / bank account for PTI - this has not been determined yet, topic will be addressed by the DT-O in the next few weeks. 3.2 PTI Bylaws open issues * Chair person nomination language: group goes with proposal from Matthew and Greg. * Term limits meant to be only for the chair, 2x3years limit agreed by the group. * No further issues raised by the group ACTION (Lise): send Matthew/Greg proposals to Sidley ACTION (Sidley): incorporate changes suggested by the group in the comment letter on the PTI bylaws 3.3 Naming function agreement * Staff will provide to CWG a document showing how the principles of annex C have been incorporated in the Naming function contract 4. Client Committee * No topic to be discussed 5. AOB * Gratitude expressed for work put by all to get to this point

1 0

FW: CWG Comment Letter - PTI Bylaws
by Lise Fuhr Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

Dear All, Thank you all for a very constructive and productive meeting today. Please note that the attached documents were duly submitted by the co-chairs in advance of the closing deadline for public comments on the PTI Bylaws. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise From: cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Flanagan, Sharon Sent: 11 August 2016 22:37 To: 'cwg-client(a)icann.org' Subject: [client com] Fw: CWG Comment Letter - PTI Bylaws Dear Client Committee- Attached is the revised CWG comment letter on the PTI bylaws and the revised bylaws. Best regards, Sharon Sharon R. Flanagan Sidley Austin LLP SF tel: 415-772-1271 PA tel: 650-565-7008 Email: sflanagan(a)sidley.com

1 0

[Announcement] Call for Public Comment on IANA IPR Agreements
by Yuko Green Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-08-11-en Call for Public Comment on IANA IPR Agreements Today, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Trust, the operational communities, and ICANN announced a call for public comment, soliciting feedback on draft agreements designed to address a requirement from the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-transition-pro…> [PDF, 2.3 MB]. The Proposal required that the domain names that ICANN uses to perform the IANA functions and the IANA trademarks (the "IANA IPR") be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Functions Operator, and held for the benefit of the entire community. This call for public comment<https://www.ianacg.org/call-for-public-comment-on-iana-ipr-agreements/> seeks community input on three agreements concerning the IANA IPR developed by the community to meet this requirement from the Proposal: · IANA IPR Assignment Agreement · IANA IPR License Agreement (model) · IANA IPR Community Agreement The ICG web site is being used as a neutral site to host this call for public comment, but the agreements are not a product of the ICG. After public comment inputs are reviewed and considered, the agreements will be finalized. The agreements are expected to be signed upon successful completion of the IANA Stewardship Transition. ICANN is a party to some of the agreements posted for comment: · The IANA IPR Assignment Agreement, through which ICANN will transfer the IANA IPR to the IETF Trust · Three IANA IPR License Agreements, through which the IETF Trust will license back to ICANN the rights to use that IANA IPR in the performance of the IANA functions. There will be three IANA IPR License Agreements, so that there is one representing each portion of the IANA functions (naming, numbering and protocol parameters). The Community Agreement sets out how the naming, numbering and protocol parameters communities will work together with the IETF Trust. Comments are due by 12 September 2016 at 23:59 UTC. Comments should be submitted via email to IANAIPRpubliccomment(a)ianacg.org<mailto:IANAIPRpubliccomment@ianacg.org>. Commenters should clearly reference to which of the agreement(s) their comments apply. For more detailed information, please visit https://www.ianacg.org/call-for-public-comment-on-iana-ipr-agreements/. Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 E-mail: yuko.green(a)icann.org<mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Fwd: [Iana-ipr] [contreraslegal@att.net: Final documents]
by Greg Shatan Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

All, For the sake of completeness, I am re-forwarding the set of documents with one additional change to the Community Agreement, which covers the situation where a community (e.g., the protocol parameters community) wanted to switch the entity that signed the agreement (e.g, a switch from the IETF to a new entity). This is more fully described below by Josh Hofheimer. Other than that, these agreements are unchanged from the drafts previously sent. Greg *From:* Hofheimer, Joshua T. *Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2016 5:42 PM *To:* 'Jorge Contreras'; Greg Shatan *Cc:* iana-ipr(a)nro.net; Alissa Cooper; Andrew Sullivan *Subject:* RE: [Iana-ipr] [contreraslegal(a)att.net: Final documents] To all, I identified one requested change to the Community Agreement that, in the flurry of revisions in the last few days, did not make it into the document. The relevant Section is 5.2 (Withdrawal of an Operational Community). The revision is attached here in Track Changes, and accounts for the fact that in the future, a community may want to change its representative “Operational Community.” This may be a straight withdrawal, which is contemplated in the Agreement, or may be a switch to another Party. This last part is not picked up and language has been added to address. Jorge communicated that he has no objection to the proposed text. I am attaching the redline here, but will follow in another email with clean and PDF copies. I am including all six documents again, just for ease of forwarding. There are no changes to the License or the Assignment Agreement. Thank you, Josh *Joshua Hofheimer* *Sidley Austin LLP* *jhofheimer(a)sidley.com <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com>* *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)* *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)* *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)* *From:* iana-ipr-bounces(a)nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net <iana-ipr-bounces(a)nro.net>] *On Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras *Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2016 4:19 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* iana-ipr(a)nro.net; Alissa Cooper; Andrew Sullivan *Subject:* Re: [Iana-ipr] [contreraslegal(a)att.net: Final documents] Here they are, in PDF and DOC, with yellow highlighting restored to the License, and “TBD prior to signing” in 6.1 of the Assignment. Jorge L. Contreras Contreras Legal Strategy LLC 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 Washington, DC 20036 contreraslegal(a)att.net The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message immediately. *From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 5:08 PM *To: *Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal(a)att.net> *Cc: *Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in>, <iana-ipr(a)nro.net>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> *Subject: *Re: [Iana-ipr] [contreraslegal(a)att.net: Final documents] Can we get Word documents as well as the PDFs? I expect to get this request from people in the CWG, and I'd rather be able to meet it than say no. Thanks. Greg On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal(a)att.net> wrote: Ok. I will do that and the yellow highlighting. Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 10, 2016, at 4:32 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > > >> On Aug 10, 2016, at 3:22 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: >> >> Hmm, I thought this was the form we chose on the call today. I'm ok >> with [TBD before signing]. Would that do? > > Yes, that works. > Alissa > >> >> A >> >>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:15:32PM -0700, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> I think the [TBD] in 6.1 of the assignment agreement needs a footnote of explanation. Commenters will not know whether the parties intent to sign the agreement as-is and decide on the value of X afterward, or whether the parties intend to specify X before signing. >>> >>> Alissa >>> >>>> On Aug 10, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Here are the documents. >>>> >>>> The license still says something about "things highlighted in yellow" >>>> but I think they've all been changed to bold. Jorge had to go, but I >>>> told him and presumably he can regenerate later. >>>> >>>> A >>>> >>>> ----- Forwarded message from Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal(a)att.net> ----- >>>> >>>> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:30:48 -0600 >>>> From: Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal(a)att.net> >>>> To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> >>>> Subject: Final documents >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- End forwarded message ----- >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andrew Sullivan >>>> ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com >>>> <Community-Agreement_-_08-10-2016_final_clean.pdf> >>>> <License_Agreement_IANA_IPR_08-10-2016_final_clean.pdf> >>>> <Assignment_Agreement_08-10-2016_final_clean.pdf> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Iana-ipr mailing list >>>> Iana-ipr(a)nro.net >>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nro.net_mailman_li…> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Iana-ipr mailing list >>> Iana-ipr(a)nro.net >>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nro.net_mailman_li…> >> >> -- >> Andrew Sullivan >> ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Iana-ipr mailing list >> Iana-ipr(a)nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nro.net_mailman_li…> > > > _______________________________________________ > Iana-ipr mailing list > Iana-ipr(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nro.net_mailman_li…> _______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr(a)nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nro.net_mailman_li…> ************************************************************ **************************************** 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 4

FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter - PTI Bylaws
by Jonathan Robinson Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

All, Please be aware of the latest version of the CWG comment letter. Please note Sharon Flannigan’s comments below including that the Public Comment period closes later today. Thank-you. Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 10 August 2016 07:21 To: 'Client Committee' <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter - PTI Bylaws Dear Client Committee, Attached is a revised draft of the CWG comment letter on the PTI bylaws. As noted previously, we have updated the letter to address the appointment of the initial independent PTI directors. We also understand that the Nominating Committee will be prepared to begin nominating the two independent PTI directors in 2017 (rather than waiting until 2018 or 2019). These changes are reflected in Sections 4 and 5 of the draft comment letter and in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.5.1 of the revised bylaws. We note that strategy/budget still needs to be finalized in the letter and the draft bylaws. As a reminder, the comment letter is due Thursday, August 11. Best regards, Sharon SHARON R. FLANAGAN SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 415 772 1271 <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> sflanagan(a)sidley.com **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************

7 9

Version 2 of Naming Function Agreement
by Trang Nguyen Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, Attached is a revised Naming Function Agreement that incorporated feedback from Sidley. We will start a 30-day public comment process on this draft today. During the public comment period, we will continue to engage with the CWG and Sidley to resolve any remaining issues or concerns with this document as we have been for this and other documents. We are also preparing documents that will explain how we have taken on Sidley's feedback and how we have incorporated the principles of Annex C. These documents will be provided to the CWG over the next few days. Here is a schedule of the public comment period to give you visibility of the timeline: 10 August: Public comment period begins 11 August: CWG meeting 18 August: CWG meeting 25 August: CWG meeting 1 September: CWG meeting 9 September: Public comment period ends 16 September: Staff analysis report and final Agreement posted 16 September: ICANN Board meeting TBD: PTI Board meeting ICANN Board approval of the Agreement is expected to take place on 16 September. The PTI Board will also be asked to approve the Agreement. Best, Trang

3 3

Draft PTI Budget Development & Approval Process
by Gomes, Chuck Aug. 11, 2016

Aug. 11, 2016

Attached are three files regarding the Draft PTI Budget Development & Approval Process: 1. The first file contains three slides that show the proposed PTI Operating Plan & Budget development and approval process. 2. The second file is a compliance matrix that maps the CWG proposal IANA budget requirements to the process elements along with DT-O's assessment regarding compliance to the requirements. 3. The third file is a copy of the Draft PTI Bylaws with redlined changes proposed to accommodate the proposed process. DT-O met today and provides the above for CWG review and approval. I understand the lateness of these documents but DT-O just received them this week and just met today (Wednesday). Because the proposed Bylaws changes are needed right away, I thought that the documents should be sent with short notice. I will defer to Lise and Jonathan about how to handle these. I am prepared to discuss the documents in the CWG call on Thursday and am sure that Xavier will be as well. Chuck

1 0