I don't think the goal of the discussion paper is to reach consensus in our respective groups but rather to generate discussion and feedback from the community. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:47 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore Hi, On 02-Feb-15 00:07, Milton L Mueller wrote: The first point you make in this report, which apparently was drafted by ICANN staff, is "Overall there was very strong support for the current IANA operator (ICANN) and that the IANA functions should not be moved from ICANN, or tendered for, at the onset of the transition." Taken out of context, this statement makes it seem as if there is little support for separability. And yet what is says appears true as it stands, no mater who wrote it. I think the misapprehension some might get could be fixed by adding a clause at the begining that says While separability has been supported as a basic principle of the process, and is supported by a most of the participants, overal there is .... I was traveling when this came out am still reading the report and will add my personal views on the report later in the day. At this point I should emphasise that these reviews will all be personal and will not be an NCSG position - I do not think we have time to reach such a consensus even among the our smaller tracking group in the next day. If perchance we do, I will inform the list of that condition. avri avri