Conclusions - The only thing these 3 groups have in common is that the proposal is too complex, that IANA should not be shifted from ICANN at the beginning of the transition and that accountability needs to be in place prior to the transition.

All (at the request of the co-Chairs),

Please find attached  the next version (2.0) of the analysis (based on the previous spreadsheet which was presented on December 30th).

All the data used is included as well as how it was classified etc. and the various tabs are aptly named.

Tabulation of results has now been automated to avoid errors.

There are no significant differences vs the results presented December 30th:

• The analysis of all the responses together is essentially the same and still does not give a majority to Contract Co.(when using a 75% requirement)
• The analysis by type of respondent is useful but the cross comparisons are not, at least in my opinion.
• The analysis of ccTLDs vs the RySG proposal in interesting.
• The analysis of In ICANN vs Not In ICANN is very interesting with a high degree of correlation on many points by those In ICANN.

Attached.

B.

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship