Hi, In addition to the discussions on the list, the remnants of the DT-N group had a call to try and resolve the issues. And then did a bunch of editing. We think we have simplified it somewhat. We did continue to make the recommendation that it be done by a group that was different than the S-IFR group that recommended the initiation of the separation process, despite the fact that some consider this counter to common sense. As far as we could tell the larger group was split on this issue and we gave weight to the consideration that as a checks-and-balances measure, the group that recommends an RFP be created not be the one creating and running the RFP. In terms of the composition of the separation process group, which we called Separation Cross-Community WG (SCWG) it has pretty much the same multistakeholder mix as the IFR, with a slight favoring of Registries, but representation from all stakeholder groups/ACSO. Again a compromise. The makeup of the SCWG, however, is a wider issue and might need further CWG-IANA discussion to reach an annealing point. We decided to base it loosely on the IFR team composition, which is already in public comment. Attached is the latest revision of that process. The file remains in the drive document and remains open for comment. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrET...> After so many attempts, there is no certainty of having the right mix this time. But there is hope. The primary authors were Greg, Stephanie and myself. We also have created a punch list response table that is still being worked on. It can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jmdqJkl1X292h9kqjQcYh7gcAW81XhektbeMxAD...> avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com