Subject: Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from CWG-Stewardship
From: Adobe Connect Notifications <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 06:51:01 -0600

Marika Konings:Welcome to the IANA Stewardship Transition CWG Meeting of
18 December 2014
  Robert Guerra:good day all
  Staffan:Hello all
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Hi all
  Milton:Greetings
  Lise Fuhr:Hello and greetings
  Keith ccNSO:Hi all
  Sivasubramanian M:hello
  Seun Ojedeji:Hi all
  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Hi all
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Hi Avri, Alan Avr et.al.
  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Good afternoon!
  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hello
  Fatima Cambronero:hello everyone
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:hello everyone
  matthew shears:hello
  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Martin - I will forward the formal letter from the
GAC on the principles
  Milton:Can you provide the link to the document?
  Milton:again....
  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Thanks Elie:  will you be sending it to the
list?
  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Sorry:  Elise
  Marika Konings:I believe the link is
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1POnrfwYbviniyUC_vr4pGRZ-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M
2yk/edit?usp=sharing
  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Martin - It posted to Lise and Jonathan and to the
CWG today
  Robert Guerra:lost audio back in a moment
  Marika Konings:Please mute your lines and mics when not speaking - you
can also do this in Adobe Connect by right clicking your mic and select
mute.
  Wale Bakare:Hi everyone, afternoon/morning
  Robert Guerra:back and audio ok
  Lise Fuhr:@Robert you are after Cheryl
  Robert Guerra:ok
  Alan Greenberg:Robert VERY quiet.
  Milton:speak up louder, Robert~!
  Keith ccNSO:Cant hear
  Milton:yes
  Keith ccNSO:not much
  Sivasubramanian M:yes
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Primary Landing page for RFP-5 is  here
(https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49359381)  and
notes our mandate is to focus on =>  V. NTIA RequirementsAdditionally, NTIA
has established that the transition proposal must meet the following five
requirements:Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;Maintain the
security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;Meet the needs and
expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA
functions;Maintain the openness of the Internet;The proposal must not
replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental
organization solution.This section should explain how your community¹s
proposal meets these requirements and how it responds to the global interest
in the IANA functions.Note: CWG-RFP3 and 4 should have considered this in
their work and this should only be a final sanity check to produce the text
confirming this requirement once 3 and 4 are completed.
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:ALSO  the drafting for text / contribution  wiuki page
is  here 
(https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG-RFP5+-+Draft)
ALL are welcome to contribute  directly  here an / or  to join the RFP-5
group at our future calls... next call is 2130 UTC  Dec 30th...
  matthew shears:apologies but what is CWG IANA2 on Sat 10 Jan?
  Grace Abuhamad:the intensive work weekend
  Grace Abuhamad:there are two calls per day so I was trying to
differentiate them
  matthew shears:ok thanks!
  Grace Abuhamad:sorry for the confusion
  Milton:Yes
  Milton:surprise, surprise!
  Milton:many groups preparing comments need to get them approved by their
groups, which taks time
  Seun Ojedeji:Ws the comment from GAC shared on the list?
  Grace Abuhamad:It will be
  Alan Greenberg:Thanks for the reminder. I have been occupied on a
personal matter but will get it sent out either today or tomorrow.
  Seun Ojedeji:Okay but I will appeciate that letters/comments don't get
delayed from being sent to the CWG in future. Thanks
  matthew shears:I fully support the inclusion of separability in the
principles and proposal
  Seun Ojedeji:I think we should define seperability before determnining
whether that word should be included.
  Elise Lindeberg GAC:I would think THE ABILITY to separate is crutial for
the GAC
  Amr Elsadr:@Matt: +1.
  Seun Ojedeji:I support seperability principle if its not solely based on
moving IANA out of ICANN
  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:I agree to Bertrand
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:Elise, this is what I mean. identifying the
conditions that would trigger this "nuclear option" is different from
building the system around this.
  Amr Elsadr:I think any proposal that doesn't involve seprability as a
principle is a dooms-day scenario. :)
  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:yes
  Seun Ojedeji:very much milton ;)
  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Bertrand - I agree with Malcom - ability to separate
is fundamenatal for the draft proposal
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:+1 Bertrand
  matthew shears:I do not see that we are building this around separability
- it is an option for the MRT not a foregone conclusion - by putting it in
the principles and proposal we are merely ensuring that it is not precluded.
I don't see why this is such an issue
  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Surely Bertrand and Malcolm are ot at odds at
the level of principle.  How you do it is operational
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:I do not think that anyone advocates completely
doing away with separability.
  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Alan
  Milton:We need to get into that world, Alan
  Milton:Olivier: that is good to know
  Avri Doria:so ALAC is not objecting to the principle it is objecting to
the soltution.  one does not object to a principle as a manner of arguing
about the solution.
  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Avri +1
  Milton:Cmplexity of the accountability changes will be far more extensive
if we don't have a contractual relationship
  matthew shears:+ 1 Milton
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I would not classify the current proposal as
"arcane" ("understood by few; mysterious or secret"),
  Amr Elsadr:I don't understand the complexity in seprability. This
principle has always existed. Why is it suddenly complex?
  Milton:Greg: Yes, as a rhetorical move that is getting really old.
  Alan Greenberg:@Avri, you are correct in theory. But when the principle
is implicitly linked in many people mind and (pun intended) cannot be
separated from each other, objecting to the core principle is easier. If the
invisible words "there must be a contract" were not there inthe principle,
this would be different.
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):"Complex" and "arcane" are words being used
instead of rational argument.
  Milton:Especially when the complex changes in accountability structures
are as yet unspecified
  Amr Elsadr:@Greg: +1
  Brenden Kuerbis:Another fault - hanging all repsonsibility on
CCWG-Accountability for a solution would be a major mistake, as the Board
has stated it will have the final say on any reforms proposed.
  Avri Doria:we are arguing about the solutions, not the principle.
  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:I also see this "principle" as an important
possibility to pull the emergency brake just in case. This is part of the
existing contract
  matthew shears:surely at the end of the day we would not want to the MRT
to be hamstrung by not having the separability option
  Seun Ojedeji:@Amr i think the principle has just become complex because
we building a proposal around seperability
  Elise Lindeberg GAC:+1 Wolf-Ulrich
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Avri, I agree.  The solution to separability
in the current proposal is clear.  I have not seen another clear solution
proposed.
  Avri Doria:but in this discussion we are supposed to be focusing on the
principle itself.
  Chuck Gomes (RySG):I agree with Brenden.
  Milton:Agree with Bertrand that the key is the criteria for separability
  Seun Ojedeji:I agree with Brenden
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Agree with @Brenden and @Chuck.  Also,
responsibility for IANA accountability rests with this group, not the CCWG.
  Seun Ojedeji:*Bertrand*
  Alan Greenberg:If it was not taken as a given that a contract is the
ONLLY way to achieve it, that agreement would be far easier. Companies
divest themselves of divisions, both voluntarily and by order all the time.
No contract, but serparability.
  Milton:But Bertrand, why is it so important to ensure that ICANN is the
presumed provider? 
  Amr Elsadr:Also agree with Brenden. I can't think of a rationale reason
why we should submit a proposal here based on the belief that the board will
approve all accoutability recommendations made by the CCWG. Furthermore, I
can't think of a stronger accountability mechanism the CCWG can propose that
is stronger than seprability of IANA.
  Yasuichi Kitamura (At Large):sorry for my delay
  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:The principles do not mention how separability
might be achieved
  Seun Ojedeji:The unfortunate thing is that we have not made attempt to
focus on how to ensure acountability internally instead of expending our
resources on upholding seperability
  Alan Greenberg:I strongly support what Bertrand is saying.
  Milton:Seun: that is the job of CCWG-Accountbiliy
  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:@Martin: and that's good so. this is an operational
issue
  Brenden Kuerbis:Alan I believe several has stated on list about the need
to further detail the conditions and process by which the MRT would consider
separability.
  Staffan:Agree: there isn't really disagreement on the principle per se?
Implementation is may the conflict, so lets move on to that...
  Desiree Miloshevic:I would approve that statement too
  Milton:so an alternative method of separability must be proposed.
  Milton:I frankly don't think you get separability without a contract, or
at minimum an MoU
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Trouble with mute
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:milton, I do not want to ensure it, I start from
the assumption that this organization was created for that purpose and that
the goal is make sure that it continues to do it with the proper guarantees
on an ONGOING basis
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):fixed
  Seun Ojedeji:@Milton i think that is the problem as we attempt to
differentiate accountability from our task; this CWG  is all about
accountability just that its in relation to IANA so we it will be within
scope to identify that requirements/factors that will reflect our
principles. Just that we are only looking externally and not looking
internally
  matthew shears:We should leave it to the MRT when constituted to decide
as to how and when seaparbility should be used - but it should be there as
an option.
  Alan Greenberg:Why are we now debating the implementation????
  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:+1 Matthew; and to my understanding this doesn't
presume a contract
  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Matthew:  I'd rather MRT have quite clear
instructions on when they can use power
  Alan Greenberg:After closing the queue?
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:matthew, I think it should not be entirely left
to an MRT to define the criteria. some of it shoulld at least be prefigured
to a significant extent by this group. +1 with Martin
  matthew shears:yes agree with some criteria
  Seun Ojedeji:no problem i will write it here
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:@matthew: this is a point of potential consensus:
defining some criteria beforehand. could this be checked witht he group?
  Milton:+1 to Mrtin's comment, too
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Alan -- because any proposal that is made has
to be implementable.
  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:very clear criteria, Matthew.  No one should
be able to write their rules for pressing the nuclear button
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:+1 Martin
  matthew shears:@ Martin - agree
  Brenden Kuerbis:Agree with Martin's comment too, need clear "rules"
  Seun Ojedeji:Just to mention that its not appropriate for Greg to say we
have not proposed a way....ALAC has proposed elements that needs to be
looked into to achieve our goal so its not appropriate to rule out the
proposal...we should discuss it together and find a solution. We don't have
any solution right now...not even the current CWG proposal
  Milton:Alan, what is the separability mechanism in your alt proposal?
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Seun -- What's the way?  You have proposed
that we can go to the opposite shore, without telling us how we will get
there.
  matthew shears:We all want the CCWG accountability to do something
effective - that does not preclude independent oversight of the IANA and the
thrust of the current IANA proposal
  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Agreed Matthew
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Alan, but what's the trigger?
  Alan Greenberg:@avri. That is NOT what is being proposed. We are talking
about mandatory acct.
  Mark Carvell - GAC (UK Govt):Divesting an activity from a
multi-constituency, bottom-up, global entity seesm very challenging in
process and constitutional terms - and likely to be very protracted.
  Seun Ojedeji:@Greg i really don't understand it when you say we have not
said how. What i will agree is that we have not fleshed out details (lots of
content like the CWG proposal)
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):The trigger and mechanism that causes the
divestiture.
  Alan Greenberg:Membership is one such trigger.
  Milton:Carvell: +1
  Avri Doria:But the Board has complete control of the by-laws and can
unchange any change.
  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Avri -  I agree that counting on bylaws and internal
ICANN procedures is not enought
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:Mark, when you say "multi-constituency,
bottom-up, global entity", are you talking about the MRT?
  Seun Ojedeji:Sorry about that thanks
  Avri Doria:ICANN legal has been superbly talented at creating an
unassialble board. 
  Seun Ojedeji:NO MRT with a different role
  Chuck Gomes (RySG):+1 Avri
  Seun Ojedeji:infact i think we will rename our MRT to something else
  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I disagree that bylaws cannot be made to work:
the Board should not have any right to change certain bylaws
  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Martin
  Milton:Martin Boyle: are you familiar with California Nonprofit public
benefit law?
  Amr Elsadr:@Martin: Currently, the board can change any by-laws with a
2/3 of the board vote. I somehow doubt the board would vote to change the
by-laws to limit their ability to change them again.
  maarten Simon, SIDN:we should have legal advise if the bylaw solution is
possible. makes no sense to discuss it as long that's not clear.
  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:So jurisdiction is the problem?
  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:In this case, ICANN would never be accountable
- for IANA or for anything else...?
  Milton:oh boy, a new supporting organization
  maarten Simon, SIDN:@amr not the whole of the bylaws only the specific
IANA ones that we add
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):So, to reduce complexity, you are replacing
one organization (Contract Co.) with 2 organizations?
  Milton:Martin, if you keep certain things internal to the corporation,
you are limited by Cal. law. If it is external, you are not
  Avri Doria:how is an MOU differnet from a contract in this context?
  Seun Ojedeji:Milton hang-on i should note that we are reviewing this
structure...some of those structures we are also thinking will not be
necessary
  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Martin - breach of bylaws  - how do you enforce
consequences with the  current ICANN board struckture ?
  Milton:so much for the complexity argument, I get dizzy just looking at
this 
  Amr Elsadr:Is a new SO with by-laws changes, board representation, NomCom
membership, travel support and other funding count as a less complex
solution?
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Ah, now we have to organize the I*
organizations.  No small task....
  Mark Carvell - GAC (UK Govt):@Bertand; the a;lternative to the Contractco
within the envisaged ICANN structure envisaged by ALAC: which I consider has
strengths and merits  by the way!
  Alan Greenberg:The CORE issue is looking for a proposal that can work and
that does not nead the external contracting entity. The rest is flexible.
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Alan, that I agree with.
  Amr Elsadr:@Alan: + less complex than the contracting co. model too,
right?
  Milton:Amr, yes a new SO funded by ICANN will be "less costly" <cough>
  Sivasubramanian M:Though it looks complicated, the ALAC WIP addresses
some of the complications in the existing proposal and some gaps as well
  Avri Doria:and the BNRO is not the RIRs, for that they have CRISP
  Avri Doria:nor BNRO but NRO
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:The Stakeholder Groups will be able to decide on
the IANA Supporting Organisation. They have direct appointment capability.
  Avri Doria:so instead of seperating the contract out, we seperate the SO
out.
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Alan: I hope I did NOT say we were going to take
the GNSO nor ccNSO out.
  Avri Doria:and as far as can tell an Mou is a Contract by another name.
  Milton:If the names SO were really separated out from ICANN, and ICANN
was ONLY IANA, this would be a very different conversation
  Avri Doria:but going to place the IANA SO on the outside?
  Avri Doria:the complexity of this solution is delicious.
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Avri, true -- at least an MoU that is binding
on the parties.
  Brenden Kuerbis:And if you have clearity around who are the parties
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:A 2-tier SO/ Partly in, partly out. The inside
part is directly connected to the GNSO & ccNSO and gives them the ability to
feed into the external one
  Alan Greenberg:@Avri, we were using thew "SO" in ISO in the way ICANN
does today. Internal. The NRO is external and we mirrored that in the IRO.
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:aren't we confusing the SOs and the stakeholder
groups? The gNSO is the poicy body. What I think ALAC is exploring is
leveraging the stakeholder groups to form some structure for the iANA
aspect. But maybe I misunderstood.
  Milton:Olivier: highly simplified, ;-)
  Avri Doria:Olivier, but there is an mou between them and ICANN?
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:when I mean GNSO, I mean GNSO Stakeholder groups
of course
  matthew shears:in this model to whom is the IANA functions oeprator
accountable?
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:the link between ICANN & IANA Resource org would
be the same as the one between ICANN & ASO NRO
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:the damoclès sword is to cut the link between ISO
& IRO - the nuclear scenario
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:Also, when Seun says "internal to ICANN", we need
to distinguish between ICANN the corporation and ICANN the community.
  Amr Elsadr:This seems like an awful lot of work just to keep IANA
internal to ICANN, with a possiblity of future divestiture and creation of a
contracting co. anyway!!
  maarten Simon, SIDN:@avri: I guess the mou will be bylaw based, so it
will be internal
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I think this proves that any proposal to solve
these issues is going to be at least as complex as teh current proposal.
  matthew shears:+ 1 Amr
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Maarten, then it is not an MoU, except in
name
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:awful lot of work? Create ISO. Create IRO. Done.
  maarten Simon, SIDN:@greg: fullly agree but it still has a legal effect
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I wish there was an "elegant" solution that
avoided the complexities of all of the current proposals.  But we haven't
found it.
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Olivier -- then same with Contract Co.
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):@Maarten, I don't understand what bylaw-based
MoU is.
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Or how it would have a "legal effect."
  Milton:Maarten, if our only professional lawyer doesn't understand what a
bylaw-based MoU is (and I don't either) your idea is in trouble
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:the beginniing of the chat seems to have
disappeared on my side, is that normal ?
  Sivasubramanian M:without contractCo. Or a ContractCo without. the Co in
it 
  Avri Doria:doing and RFP4 test on it is a good idea.
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Greg: the problem is that creating a Contract Co.
means we need to create a new accountability framework - but creating ISO &
IRO would can make use of the ICANN accountability process as a starting
point
  Marika Konings:@Bertrand - not sure why it has disappeared (same here),
but we have captured it and will circulate it after the meeting.
  Milton:Olivier: only AFTER the CCWG-Accountability completely changes the
ICANN accountability framework i n ways we can'[t predict
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:thanks Marika
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I think the chat has a capacity limit.  And we
broke it.
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Milton: we just cannot admit failure on the
Accountability Track. We need to make this the focus and make sure the
Accountability group delivers and is implemented
  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Maarten  - aren`t we talking about a discipline
effect at the most ...not legal
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:I am a firm supporter of a very strong
accountability track.
  Mark Carvell - GAC (UK Govt):Yes, support the RFP4 as next step for this.
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):IANA accountability is our track.
  Amr Elsadr:@Olivier: How about create Contracting co, and done. ;-)
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Amr: create contract co. and then answer all the
questions when it gets sued?
  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Olivier @Milton our task in this cwg is all on
accountability (IANA names related) so if we still think cwg on
accountability will be slow then we should   face our own part s
  Seun Ojedeji:lost audio
  Grace Abuhamad:ok dialing out to you again Seun
  Robert Guerra:can we also see what some of the public comments say
  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Milton - I don't think it is fair to suggest that
the ALAC has hijacted our work.  If we expect to get broad community support
for  a final solution, we need to thoroughly  investigate all  options.
  Milton:So Chuck, can I come up with an alternaative proposal too?
  Staffan:We should be able to discuss also other proposals
  matthew shears:this shold be considered along with other prpoals - no
doubt there wil be some - once the consultation period is over.
  Avri Doria:as i say i am fully sketical of this alternate, but ALAC is a
bit more than 5 people.  It is an AC.
  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Sure Milton as long as it is constructive.
  Alan Greenberg:@Lise. Yes - External contracting entity is the core of
the difference.
  Robert Guerra:let's also try to do a test of how lightweight different
proposals are
  Milton:Avri, if NCSG comes up with its own proposal...?
  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I agree:  we should not be shutting off
discussion
  Robert Guerra:and financial / cost implications
  Avri Doria:Milton, we have on occasion done just that.
  Milton:Martin, no one is proposing to shut off discussion
  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:That way we won't have any way of getting to a
consensus
  Seun Ojedeji:audio back
  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Sorry, misunderstood you comment, Milton
  Chuck Gomes (RySG):That is fine Milton. The RySG will probably be
proposing a variation of the CWG proposal.  I think it will be more of a
refinement than a new proposal though.
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Good point OCL re the CO  comment status...
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I have no problem giving the ALAC proposal due
consideration.
  Milton:I am all for consensus, and I am all for discussing options and
variations. I just think we need to focus on proposals that can actually get
consensus
  Robert Guerra:if ALAC proposal wants to go down via rfp4 analysis, please
try and use 3 workstreams mentioned in Tuesday's call
  Milton:Chuck: refinements are what we need now, not completely new
proposals
  Milton:We might find that public comments suggest new weaknesses or
problems in our main proposal that need to  be addressed
  Seun Ojedeji:please note that if ALAC proposal wants to be reviewed i
will suggest its based on this:
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823522/ALAC-Comment-v13-c
lean.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1418708486000&api=v2
  matthew shears:+ 1 robert we have worked on a main proposal and we chould
consider this laternative along with others when submittred
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Surely @Milton the existence of the ALAC proosal
indicate  that ALAC as a CO might very well *not* join in consensus with the
Contract Co based aproach ?
  Amr Elsadr:@Seun: I don't think that the alternative proposal is a
refinement of the standing proposal. As Malcolm said at the beginning of the
call, the CWG's current proposal is based on teh seprability principle. What
we're looking at is a new proposal based on a principle that is conflicting
with the current one.
  Avri Doria:i see this as an act of due dilligence.
  Milton:I like that expression: "an old hand" ;-)
  Brenden Kuerbis:Agree with Amr
  Milton:I am an old hand at ICANN
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):+1 @Avri
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I would say that the current proposal has an
implementable solution to the separability principle, while the ALAC
proposal does not (at least not yet).
  Chuck Gomes (RySG):The public comments will tell us how much consensus we
have on the CWG proposal.
  Milton:Cheryl: definitely. If this exercise helps bring ALAC into the
consensus I would support it.
  Robert Guerra:hopeful thT comments will be comprehensive as it will help
guide us
  Avri Doria:Amr, I think the the ALAC alternate does have to show how it
fufills the sperabilty principle.
  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Very useful meeting Lise.  Thanks.
  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:bye
  Seun Ojedeji:thanks
  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Thanks all
  Avri Doria:thanks. until the next call.
  Seun Ojedeji:bye bye
  matthew shears:thanks!
  Bart Boswinkel:Bye all
  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:thanks Lise, all
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Night Lis  Bye
  Sivasubramanian M:bye
  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Bye
  Allan MacGillivray:Very, very good discussion
  jaap akkerhuis SSAC:bye bye
  Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. God jul.
  Fatima Cambronero:thanks all, bye
  Staffan:thank You Lise, Bye
  Lise Fuhr:Bye
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Bye all
  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Good bye all.
  Mary Uduma:THANK YOU AND BYE
  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:bye all