Hi, I did an update on the file. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...> and attached a pdf version to this note. * Received some comments which I tried to include * Responded to Sibley comments, I think * Largely separated the process from who does it * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include: o who dies it: + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR would be designated] o how it is initiated: + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case of Board rejection via escalation procedure. + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs o method of operation + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made by CWG) # A process initiated in the IFR # Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross community working groups. In this case the participants would be either (decision to be made by CWG): 1. Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the Separation Review. 2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and proportions to include the broader community as this will affect the entire community. Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future. avri o --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com