Hi Jordan (and all), I wanted to follow up on a few exchanges that Jordan and Chris had over the last couple of weeks regarding the work of the CWG on the IANA transition. In particular, I wanted to ask a few questions in order to get a better understanding of the reasons behind InternetNZ's position and the principles outlined in your submission to the CWG's consultation. Among your key principles, there are some that I obviously wouldn't question - for example, the ongoing independence and policy development responsibilities of ccTLD managers. But there are a few principles upon which you base your position that don't immediately appear aligned with ICANN's core mission nor the goals of the NTIA's intent to transfer the management of the DNS "to the private sector". As you know, the fundamental mission of ICANN is to coordinate the stable and secure operation of the Internet. Supporting principles include the introduction of consumer choice and competition, stakeholder participation and the meaningful engagement of other relevant stakeholder bodies and affected parties. But neither the ICANN Bylaws nor mission statement refer explicitly to Internet NZ's proposed principles of separability and a distributed model for stewardship. How then, do your proposed principles contribute to ICANN's ongoing mission, and the resolution of the current transition process? Why are the principles of separability and distributed stewardship afforded such weight? In particular, as a ccTLD manager, what has led you to assume and justify the principles of separability and distributed stewardship, when no such principles existed previously? My next few questions relate to the fundamental differences of opinion we have exchanged regarding the future of IANA. Even if the principle of structural separation is to be accepted, why does InternetNZ believe that such a significant and rigid act of separation (establishment of a Contract Co) is required at this stage of ICANN's evolution? Is it not equally valid to consider that the codified "ability" to separate in the future is an acceptable outcome? Are models, such as a Trust, at least equally capable of delivering a desired result, without issues such as jurisdiction and structure, that are associated with establishing a Contract Co.? I'd welcome your views - both via email and (inevitably) further discussion when we catch up in Singapore. Regards, Paul