Paul, Many thanks. Indeed, these are relevant "stress tests" or questions to be answered in relation to the emerging proposal. It is helpful to me and I assume the CWG to be reminded of them. In my view, we have responded to these questions and other vital input and indeed have moved on significantly since these questions were posed. Therefore, it is my expectation that our proposal does or will answer these questions satisfactorily. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: 20 April 2015 10:22 To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: cwg-client@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal Jonathan Due to my work commitments I have not been able to read the documents - but hope to do so in the coming days. Well done to the whole team for putting such a comprehensive document together. Following our December consultation, I remember Larry Strickling asked four questions - I assume these have been answered (or if not will be answered before soliciting additional public comments). The questions are below. Best Paul Questions from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-str ickling-state-net-conference-1272015 The draft proposes the creation of three or four new entities to be involved in the naming related processes. Could the creation of any new entity interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Given that the community will need to develop, implement and test new structures and processes prior to a final transition, can it get all this done in a timeframe consistent with the expectations of all stakeholders? Does the proposal ensure a predictable and reliable process for customers of root zone management services? Under the current system, registry operators can be confident of the timing of review and implementation of routine root zone updates. If a new committee takes up what is currently a routine procedural check, how will the community protect against processing delays and the potential for politicization of the system? In response to the December 1 draft, other suggestions have emerged. Are all the options and proposals being adequately considered in a manner that is fair and transparent? How does the proposal avoid re-creating existing concerns in a new form or creating new concerns? If the concern is the accountability of the existing system, does creating new committees and structures simply create a new set of accountability questions? Quoting Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:

Sharon,

Thank-you very much for this draft document. In my view, it is a big step forward in capturing our work to date.

It has elicited a reasonable amount of discussion on the main CWG list, which we will need to brief you on.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

From: Client Committee List for CWG [mailto:cwg-client@icann.org] Sent: 18 April 2015 18:50 To: Client Subject: [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal

Dear All,

Attached is a summary of the current legal structure under consideration by the CWG. This also includes the CCWG dependencies.

Please let us know if you have any comments or would like to discuss.

Best regards,

Sharon

SHARON FLANAGAN Partner

Sidley Austin LLP +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan@sidley.com

**************************************************************************** ************************

This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.

**************************************************************************** ************************