- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

v1 Final Proposal
by Grace Abuhamad June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

Dear CWG-Stewardship, Here attached is the first version of the Final Proposal. My computer crashed in the midst of formatting changes, and I have only been able to recover this version at this time. Substantive changes are all included, but it¹s not as final¹ as I had intended to send you. Open Items for discussion on call Tuesday * PTI Board skill set requirements (paragraph 102) * Need final version of DT-N/X/SR (page 23) * DT-C to provide an updated version of their Charter and annex documents following review of the Public Comment * DT-F to confirm if there are any changes to Section III.A.iii (page 27) * With regard to the replacement of approval function for major architectural and operational changes: the ICANN Board will be responsible for approving changes, but there remains the question of what will commission a working group and deliver the report to the Board? Is this an item for the CSC? * .INT language * Section IV.D. Implementation List * Section VI Staff edits to make * Add Term Sheet as annex * Renumber annexes * Fix glossary to alpha order * Fix numbering and heading formatting Final stretch! Grace

6 9

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...
by Alan Greenberg June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

Check, are you worried about registry fees going up: * Capriciouslty? * Because the new IANA implementation is more costly than todays, and/or may rise significantly in the future? If the former, what makes the transition more likely to cause it than today? If the latter, registries are front and center in supporting the structure we are now proposing, which will surely increase costs from today's model. And in the time of some future separation of IFO from PTI, something at will only happen with the support of the registries, costs may rise even higher. I am not sure if you are asking for a guarantee that any such future changes be absorbed by ICANN. Given that registry fees are ICANN's primary source of revenue, I am not sure how that could be possible. So could you be specific on exactly what you would like to see here and what are you trying to protect against? Alan At 31/05/2015 09:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >My fear is that if the issue of registry fees is not dealt with as >part of the transition, the risk of fees being raised after >transition will be much higher. > >Chuck > >-----Original Message----- >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:11 PM >To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ... > >Hi, > >On 29-May-15 12:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > While I do not agree that it would be out of scope, let me put > that aside and ask you a question Avri: How would you propose > addressing the registry concern about the possibility of registry > fees (which of course would likely be paid by registrars and > ultimately registrants) be raised to cover IANA costs that are > presently paid mostly via registry/registrar/registrant fees? > >As part of the ICANN Budget cycle process? > >Not a process I take part in, but one that I assume deals with >issues such as how ICANN income and outgo are allocated. Seems like >a really good exercise that I would watch with interest. I just do >not see this topic as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition >process, which should be satisfied with a commitment that ICANN >will pay IANA's way as needed and negotiated through transitions and >beyond. It is the price of ICANN holding stewardship. As between >parent and ward. > >The CCWG is working on the mechanisms needed to deal with ICANN >budget issues going forward, these ICANN budget allocation issues do >not need to lumped in with the transition itself. > > >avri > > >--- >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >http://www.avast.com > >_______________________________________________ >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

6 6

Information about consultations that has taken place within GAC in relation to CWG
by Lindeberg, Elise June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

Dear Grace and Bart - I suddenly realized that I was to report consultations that has taken place within GAC in relation to the CWG work and public hearing on the second draft proposal - I assume you will put this information into the final CWG proposal. · GAC members and participants in the CWG and the GAC secretariat have been using GAC mailing list to point attention to specific items and discussions in the CWG, asking for GAC members comments and questions in the ongoing process. The GAC secretariat has also established a CWG/CCWG whiteboard on GAC website - for updates and exchange on both CWG and CCWG draft proposals. The GAC secretariat have been following the CWG process closely, using the whiteboard to give summary of CWG/CCWG discussions, updated timeline on CWG and CCWG draft proposals and processes, information about Webinars, summary of public comments from other Governments/GAC members and information about internal GAC procedures and range of possible options for taking a position as a Chartering Organisation of CWG. Information on the whiteboard is functioning as a coordination tool between CWG stewardship and CCWG Accountability. · GAC CWG members and participants and the GAC secretariat has provided analysis of how GAC input is reflected in the CWG proposal, including how the sets of principles agreed by the GAC in desember 2014 have been reflected in the CWG. * GAC has held briefing sessions between GAC leaders team and CWG members for update on CWG process and timeline before the public comment period for the CWG draft proposal in April. * On the 22nd of April, the GAC Chair Thomas Schneider wrote a letter to all GAC members to remind members about the CWG and CCWG timeline and public comment period and to inform how the GAC can contribute to the CWG and CCWG process before, during and after Boenos Aires meeting. · GAC members and participants in the CWG, together with the GAC secretariat, gave a summary of the CWG draft proposal before GAC wide calls. · The GAC has held GAC-wide calls on the 5th and 6th of May to enable individual GAC members to discuss and develop their views on the CWG draft proposal and share their views across the GAC. Discussions on these wide-calls identified issues of special interest to the GAC in both the CWG and CCWG draft proposals. · Sufficient time has been allocated for GAC discussions on CWG final proposal and CCWG draft proposal during the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. Kind regards Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative Networks Department Norwegian Communications Authority e-mail: ekl(a)nkom.no<mailto:ekl@nkom.no> Mobile: +47 90190947

1 0

Agenda for 2 June call (meeting #56)
by Grace Abuhamad June 1, 2015

June 1, 2015

Hi all, Here is the proposed agenda for meeting #56. We are incorporating edits to the Final Proposal and will circulate so that you have time to review the document in advance of the call tomorrow (we are aiming to send by 22:00 UTC at the latest). Agenda for Meeting #56 on 2 June: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Recap of the High Instensity Meetings 3. Update on Public Comments a. Mechanics & process b. Implications for Design Teams/ CWG (whole) c. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses 4. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal 5. 1st Reading of Final Proposal 6. CCWG-Accountability a. Coordination update b. Phrasing conditionality in the CWG Proposal c. CCWG-Accountability Public Comment close on 3 June 7. Overall Timeline / Milestones a. Communications b. Webinars on 11 June (interpretation?) c. Sessions at ICANN 53 8. Client Committee - Instructions to Sidley 9. AOB 10. Closing Remarks Best, Grace

1 0

Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
by Duchesneau, Stephanie June 1, 2015

June 1, 2015

Hi All, In order to facilitate today’s review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below: * Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the “asks” varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic. * Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions. * Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review. * Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team. * Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment. * Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts. * Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation) * Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP. * Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT. Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today’s discussion. Best. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

11 25

FW: [client com] Separation Review and Related Documents from Sidley
by Grace Abuhamad May 30, 2015

May 30, 2015

Forwarding Sidley¹s work on Separation Process. From: <Flanagan>, Sharon Flanagan <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Date: Friday, May 22, 2015 at 5:47 PM To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] Separation Review and Related Documents from Sidley Dear All, Attached please find the following documents: 1. Our comments to the Separation Process document. 2. An updated document addressing CCWG dependencies to reflect the Separation Process. This document is an extract from the CCWG proposal and is marked to show proposed changes. Consider whether you would want to communicate these new dependencies to CCWG through a comment letter to their proposal. 3. A revised punch list document. Please note that this is not Staff-maintained punch list. Instead it is the Sidley version where we added in the inputs we received from Greg from the design teams. We also attach a redline so Staff can see what changes we are proposing and those changes can be carried over to the master punch list being maintained by Staff. A few notes on the punch list: a. We have identified new items arising out of the design team input (those are in yellow); b. We have added the PTI item we discussed regarding input from ICANN finance/tax on the tax exempt status of PTI (#1A); and c. We suggested specific wording changes to the CWG proposal to address the design team inputs on the punch list. Grace could you please forward to CWG? Best regards, Holly, Sharon and Josh SHARON FLANAGAN Partner Sidley Austin LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com> <http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP **************************************************************************** ************************ 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. **************************************************************************** ************************

3 2

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #55 - 29 May (Session 6)
by Brenda Brewer May 29, 2015

May 29, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA High Intensity Meeting, Session 6 - 29 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/IANA+CWG+Meeting+%2355 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action: DTs aim to finalize responses to PC and documents/edits to draft proposal by Monday 1 June at 12:00 UTC Action: Staff to provide updated draft for sections iv, v, vi in draft to be circulated for Tuesday's call (2 June) Notes Overall Timeline / Milestones * 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting * 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - review final proposal (sign-off?) * 8 June - submission to SO/ACs * 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - Next steps, communication, other issues * W/C 8 June - Communication Work - Webinars on 11 June? * 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires Notes: Eduardo Diaz on audio only 1. Recap & Continuation of Prior Meeting * Worked with outputs from DT-N and DT-SR/X IFRT * Agreement to add ccNSO member to IFRT * Alternates -- 2 options: members could each have alternates (doubling the size) OR member could name alternates in case of substitution * These groups are open and transparent processes so anyone can observe proceedings * Clarification: No additional gTLD representation S[C]WG * Geographic diversity where possible * Skillset recommendations * Expansion proposition: 3 gTLD registries & 3 ccTLD registries (one additional ccTLD registry and one additional gTLD registry). The registries must ensure georgraphic diversity. * This group is also open and transparent so anyone can observe proceedings * Recognising that at the time the SWG will be invoked this will be at the end of a substantial process. As such, the SWG is expected to move will be required to move forward with expediency and due diligence. Separation Costs * Transition costs and ongoing operation costs * Sufficient portion of registry fees would be dedicated to the IANA services which would carry over should there be to the new operator should there be a separation, but this should not result in an increase in fees. May need to be evaluated periodically to assess whether there have been changes in budget. * ICANN maintains responsibility for funding of the IANA functions services whether in house or not (for any future state of the IANA functions) Key points on Separation Costs * 1. in the event of a future transition, ICANN would fund transition * 2. ICANN is responsible for ongoing funding of IANA operation & services * 3. no raise in fees directly associated with that 2. Design Teams Action: DTs aim to finalize responses to PC and documents/edits to draft proposal by Monday 1 June at 12:00 UTC 3. Outstanding Sections Action: Staff to provide updated draft for sections iv, v, vi in draft to be circulated for Tuesday's call (2 June) 4. Client Committee * Client Committee to ask Sidley to assist CWG with assuring condionality with CCWG-Accountability proposal * For ICANN 53 in BA, Holly will cover CCWG Accountability and may not be able to fully cover both groups, so request for Sharon Flanagan attendance as well. * Assistance with Bylaws -- making sure changes are clear and known * Punch List reviewed and checked for completeness (CWG staff to compile first) 5. Term Sheet * Term Sheet is available here: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/Term%20Sheet%20-%… 0.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1432138454000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/Term%20Sheet%20-%… .docx?version=1&modificationDate=1432138454000&api=v2 * The Term Sheet is a draft set of terms that will be implemented in the ICANN-PTI Contract (foundation on which the contract could be based) * Comments on Term Sheet due on Monday June 1 at 23:59 UTC 6. CCWG-Accountability Public Comment * Coordination between groups * We received comments from the CCWG Chairs and CWG Chairs plan to respond to their public comment as well by 3 June 7. Sign off on Final Proposal * Draft Final on Tuesday 2 June * 2nd reading and sign off on Thursday 4 June * No vote (preferred) -- instead a process of non-objection * If there are objections to signing off, we should seek explanations (and where possible try to remedy them) * Distinguish between SO/AC approval and CWG approval 8. AOB: James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: Need to discuss delivery of a draft timeline for implementation to ICG at some stage today if possible. * Part of Section IV -- work in progress

1 0

Updated public comment action items summary
by Marika Konings May 29, 2015

May 29, 2015

Dear all, Please find attached the updated summary of public comment action items as updated with the CWG responses during call #3. Best regards, Marika

1 1

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #54 - 29 May (Session 5)
by Brenda Brewer May 29, 2015

May 29, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA High Intensity Meeting, Session 5 - 29 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/IANA+CWG+Meeting+%2354 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action (Sidley): consider another term for 'inside'/'outside' Board Action (Stephanie) -- will do an overview of draft to make sure clarification/scope for naming functions is clear. Notes Overall Timeline / Milestones * 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting * 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - review final proposal (sign-off?) * 8 June - submission to SO/ACs * 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - Next steps, communication, other issues * W/C 8 June - Communication Work - Webinars on 11 June? * 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires Current schedule for rest of meetings: * Meeting #55 (14h00 to 16h00 UTC) - Remaining open issues including implementation and timescales Notes: * Focus now on DC * The function of the PTI Board is to operate the subsidiary to meet, at minimum, the statutorily requirements for the subsidiary. In addition the PTI Board will have to ensure that the PTI as the subsidiary performs to meet the conditions of the contract which will encapsulate all the SLEs and other requirements that PTI is expected to meet. * The provisional construct of the PTI Board would be a range of 3-5 people with, for example, the President of GDD, CTO, IANA Managing Director, and two additional directors. The CWG will consider making recommendations as to the skill set of PTI Board directors. * A suggestion, consistent with the provisional construct, which received some traction is as follows: ICANN Board not CEO selects the 3 members of the PTI board from among ICANN employees with advice and consent of CEO; and also selects 2 members of the PTI Board from among ICANN Board members. * Tested this construct against the Public Comments, mindful that the PC was issued before there were further details on PTI Clarification on what 'inside board' means: * From 13 May memo: "By “insider board,” we mean a PTI board comprised of a majority of directors who are employed by ICANN, including members of ICANN management responsible for oversight of the IANA functions." * In the 13 May memo, assumption that ICANN was selecting PTI Board. * Not meant as a pejorative term Action (Sidley): consider another term for 'inside'/'outside' Board "Separation Process" * Chuck Gomes proposed some edits/clarifications * Composition for the IFRT and the SCWG would be the same Composition The SCWG/IFRT would be composed as follows : ● ccNSO - 1 ● ccTLDs (non-ccNSO) - 1 ● Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) - 2 ● Registrar Stakeholder Group (RsSG) - 1 ● Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) - 1 ● Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) - 1 ● Government Advisory Committee (GAC) - 1 ● Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) - 1 ● Root Server Operators Advisory Committee (RSSAC) - 1 ● At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) - 1 ● CSC Liaison (selected by CSC) - 1 ● Special IFR Team Liaison (selected by IFR Team) - 1 ● Liaison from Protocol operational community - 1 (tbd with their approval) ● Liaison from Numbers operational community - 1 (tbd with their approval) Composition is to remain an unresolved items, Suggestion that regional cc organizations could provide input to ccNSO in selection/appointment of representative. Scope of IFRT Action (Stephanie) -- will do an overview of draft to make sure clarification/scope for naming functions is clear. Home of IFRT within ICANN so as to inherit resources and expertise The group could make a recommendation on the "fit for purpose" so that appointing committees have an idea of the skillset needed to make appointments. Review must be initiated by ICANN Board and approved by ICANN Board -- these are 'checks along the way' for governance of the organization Open Issues: - initiation of special reviews (not having to go through Board approval; community consulation as base for board approval; is Board approval a barrier timewise?) - composition of IFRT and SIFR Views of the group on unresolved issues: * Chuck supports expansion of SCWG composition (with both ccTLD and gTLD expansion given the specifics of the tasks at hand) * Martin still thinks that ccTLDs would be under-represented on IFRT but could live with increasing to 2 ccNSO reps instead of one. Agreement with Chuck on expansion of SCWG * Avri has no strong issue with addition of cc member on IFRT, but concerned about alternates and other forms of expansion. Recap: * Make sure both groups are fit for purpose so, the CWG should specifiy skillsets for each group * One additional ccNSO rep is possible on IFRT Document resources: All Client Committee documents are here: <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #53 - 29 May (Session 4)
by Brenda Brewer May 29, 2015

May 29, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA High Intensity Meeting, Session 4 - 29 May are available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/IANA+CWG+Meeting+%2353 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action (Sidley): look into composition for PTI Board to be majority ICANN Board members, and consider whether this is an inside or outside board in the legal structure. Notes Overall Timeline / Milestones * 2 June CWG-Stewardship meeting * 4 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - review final proposal (sign-off?) * 8 June - submission to SO/ACs * 9 June CWG-Stewardship meeting - Next steps, communication, other issues * W/C 8 June - Communication Work - Webinars on 11 June? * 21-25 June -- ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires Current schedule for rest of meetings: * Meeting #54 (10h00 to 12h00 UTC) - Accountability mechanisms * Meeting #55 (14h00 to 16h00 UTC) - Remaining open issues including implementation and timescales Notes: PTI Board comments start on page 21 Level Set: * Public Comment 1 - December 2014: Satisfaction with IANA; Retain IANA with ICANN; Legal advice on structure required; Comments on both too much and too little detail * ICANN52 Singapore - February 2015: Entered with 4 structures, left with 7; Lack of operational specifics criticized; No legal advice in place; Established new working methods * F2F Istanbul - 25-27 March 2015: Entered with 7 structures; Physical presence of and support from Sidley; Spirit of compromise and recognition of need to make progress * April High Intensity: Integration and finalization priority 1 DTs; Sidley Punch List; Finalize key content of proposal for 2nd public comment Current status * We did significant work on this after we released the draft for Public Comment. Much of the legal advice came in after we published the draft. Group has more information now. * With Sidley advice, the CWG took a construct forward. The construct considered is a PBC with, as a backup, an LLC configured to mimic a PBC * The function of the PTI Board is to operate the subsidiary to meet, at minimum, the statutorily requirements for the subsidiary. In addition the PTI Board will have to ensure that the PTI as the subsidiary performs to meet the conditions of the contract which will encapsulate all the SLEs and other requirements that PTI is expected to meet. * The provisional construct of the PTI Board would be a range of 3-5 people with, for example, the President of GDD, CTO, IANA Managing Director, and two additional directors. The CWG will consider making recommendations as to the skill set of PTI Board directors. * A suggestion, consistent with the provisional construct, which received some traction is as follows: ICANN Board not CEO selects the PTI board from among ICANN employees (3) with advice and consent of CEO and also ICANN Board members (2) * The CWG will investigate whether ICANN Board members as PTI Board members are considered 'insiders' or not from a legal perspective (legal input requested). * The CWG is not in a position to appoint representatives from the other operational communities, but notes that the 3-5 construct that is being proposed would create an opening should other operational communities decide to join. The CWG considers the IANA function to be operational in nature and has been be mindful of that throughout. Action (Sidley): look into composition for PTI Board to be majority ICANN Board members, and consider whether this is an inside or outside board in the legal structure. Document resources: * All Client Committee documents are here: <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee * PTI Board and Costs (7 May): <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/PTI%20-%20Board%2… f?version=1&modificationDate=1431531205000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/PTI%20-%20Board%2… ?version=1&modificationDate=1431531205000&api=v2 * Comparison of PBC vs. LLC (7 May): <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/Comparison%20of%2… ion=1&modificationDate=1431531191000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/Comparison%20of%2… on=1&modificationDate=1431531191000&api=v2 * Memorandum - Post-Transition IANA Board Stress Tests (13 May): <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/Memorandum%20-%20… 0Board%20Stress%20Tests_13May.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1431893980000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/Memorandum%20-%20… Board%20Stress%20Tests_13May.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1431893980000&api=v2 * PTI Entity Structure (13 May): <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/PTI%20Entity%20St… n=1&modificationDate=1431893995000&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891634/PTI%20Entity%20St… =1&modificationDate=1431893995000&api=v2

1 0