In response to Kieren, I think it is common-sensical, not critical, to ask who the audience of this statement is. I actually believe that the primary audience is CWG members and participants themselves, with the secondary audience being the people within the broader community who want to know what kind of progress we are making. CWG members & participants need a sharper sense of where we are post Singapore and what we plan to do in the near term. To my mind the statement fails to reflect certain key facts about the current situation: · The group is still divided over ‘internal’ and ‘external’ solutions · The Wednesday ‘working’ session in Singapore did nothing to advance or even to engage debate on that issue, but the Thursday session did start to clarify some issue by listening to feedback on some (not all) of the 9 questions posed to the community · The statement does not make it clear what process will be used to obtain additional feedback on the 9 questions, or what the timeline for that is · Progress is limited by our need for legal advice, which may rule out or raise further questions about some of the models. · The report _must_ tell us what is the status of the request for legal advice and provide an expected timeline for it. · The statement should reflect Board chair Crocker’s statement that NTIA and ICANN expect us to incorporate CCWG WS1 recommendations into our proposal, which makes our timeline critically dependent on CCWG’s. My two cents From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:57 AM To: GomesChuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting Respectively, if I could add a critical voice. This long update is all about process and contains very little real information. Who is the audience? It reads as though the audIence is the people on this list congratulating ourselves for all the work we've done. If the intended audience is people not in this list then can I suggest the update be: * Much shorter * Focused on actual details rather than listing meetings * Highlight areas of progress and agreement * Highlight areas of disagreement * list next steps with timeline Cheers Kieren - [sent through phone] On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I would not include the Work to Date and Composition sections and instead provide links. Overall it looks very good to me. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date:02/12/2015 6:56 AM (GMT-05:00) To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting To view the original announcement, please see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en The Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions held two sessions at the ICANN 52 Meeting in Singapore (8-12 February 2015): a two-hour working session<http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-cwg-stewardship> on Wednesday, and a questions and answers session<http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-cwg-stewardship> on Thursday. In addition to these sessions, there was participation in sessions hosted by many other groups across the ICANNcommunity, as well as many rewarding conversations and engagements throughout the week on behalf of the co-Chairs, the members and their chartering organizations, the individual participants of the CWG-Stewardship, and the broader multistakeholder community.1<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en#foot1> Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting The Wednesday working session focused primarily on reviewing and refining the CWG-Stewardship's working methods. These revisions dedicate the group to working in a committee of the whole moving forward, meeting at minimum once per week and, and building out the converging areas of the Proposal towards developing a final Proposal. As needed, the CWG-Stewardship will funnel specific subjects through expertise-based Task Forces. Task Forces will serve the purpose of developing specific aspects of the Proposal as well as demonstrating incremental progress. Drafts from Task Forces will be brought to the group for review and decision making on inclusion within the draft proposal. The Thursday questions and answers session was focused on receiving community feedback. In preparation for the ICANN 52 Meeting, the CWG-Stewardship created a Discussion Document<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG-SingaporeDiscu...> [PDF, 447 KB] that attempted to capture and summarize the considerable progress made by this group to date and to encourage community input on key and intractable issues that were addressed in detail on Thursday. The CWG-Stewardship appreciates the high-quality comments and responses received, and expects to devote time in its next meeting on 19 February 2015 to further assess the feedback received. The group remains open to feedback on the specific questions on the Discussion Document, and requests that feedback before the 19 February meeting. Feedback can be provided through a CWG-Stewardship member or participant, or to the support staff (grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>) for transmission to the group. Looking Ahead The ICANN 52 meeting maintained much needed focus on the work related to the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANNAccountability. Throughout the meeting the co-Chairs, the members and their chartering organizations, the individual participants of the CWG-Stewardship, and the broader community all dedicated their time to constructive feedback and progress. With the sustained support of the community, the CWG-Stewardship commits to continuing to work at a high-intensity and pace. The group will remain regularly engaged with the community and any interested observers in order to provide updates on its work as well as related elements such as receipt of legal advice, as it did during the Webinars on 3 February<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232656>. Coordination with CCWG-Accountability As agreed to in their Joint Statement<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232471>on 28 January 2015, the Chairs of both the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability committed to attending and participating in each other's sessions at ICANN 52. The CWG-Stewardship recognizes that, wherever possible and appropriate, the group will take advantage of the efforts of the CCWG-Accountability to avoid duplication or overlaps in the work to be done. With this robust coordination, the co-Chairs are assured of the effective progress of the CWG-Stewardship. Work to Date The CWG-Stewardship began its work in October 2014, with regular weekly virtual meetings and a working meeting at ICANN 51<https://community.icann.org/x/8CLxAg> in Los Angeles, California. In addition to ICANNsupported regular weekly CWG-Stewardship virtual meetings, and at the request of the Chairs, ICANNagreed to support a two-full-day face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, Germany<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-20-en>on 19-20 November 2014 to advance the work of the group. On 1 December, the CWG-Stewardship published its draft proposal for a 21-day public comment period. Following the publication of the draft proposal<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823498/CWG-Dec01PublicCon...> [PDF, 1.7 MB], between 4 – 6 December, the CWG hosted three public webinars<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823496> to present the draft proposal and engage with the broader community. At the conclusion of the public comment, the CWG-Stewardship dedicated its time to full review and analysis of the feedback received, in particular during an intensive work weekend on 10-11 January<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232482>. As part of the outcome, the group began to study a series of alternative models that had not yet been fully considered. These models were presented in two public webinars<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232656> on 3 February and in a Discussion Document<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG-SingaporeDiscu...> [PDF, 447 KB] that was released for discussion at ICANN 52 in Singapore. The next CWG-Stewardship working meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> is scheduled for 19 February from 11:00-13:00 UTC. There are plans for another face to face meeting on 25 – 27 March 2015. Composition The CWG consists 138 people, organized as 19 members, appointed by and accountable to chartering organizations, and 119 participants, who participate as individuals. The CWG is an open group: anyone interested in the work of the CWG, can join as a participant. Participants may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group or organization not represented in the CWG or currently active within ICANN, or self-appointed. Of the 138 CWG members and participants, the regional representation is as follows: · 47 Asia/Asia Pacific · 36 Europe · 31 North America · 12 Latin America · 12 Africa Of the 138 CWG members and participants, the stakeholder group representation is as follows: · 47 (no affiliation) · 32 GNSO · 20 GAC · 18 ccNSO/ccTLD · 18 At-Large · 2 SSAC · 1 ASO Also, there are 6 ICG members who participate in the CWG. ________________________________ 1<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en#note1> For a full list of sessions relevant to the IANA Stewardship Transition, please see here<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IANA...>.

Without clear and straightforward communication, the end result will be deals done at the last minute by a select few, which will then cause resentment and frustration in all those that have invested a lot of time and trouble in the process but weren't one of final arbiters. (ICANN's biggest problem writ large.) Amen to that --MM

All, Picking up on this thread, Lise and I discussed this when we talked this morning. There are some good points made in the thread and we'd like to recognise these. In particular, we agree that there's an issue with the target audience and therefore the focus and effectiveness of the communication. Emerging from ICANN 52, we felt it was important to communicate immediately at the end of the meeting and to capture some of the key points at the time. We were targeting the message at both the CWG participants and the broader community. However, it seems that a combination of working at speed and with the two audiences in mind, we didn't score right on target with either audience.

From the broader community perspective, some of the feedback we received at ICANN 52 included questioning the overall effectiveness and productivity of the group. Therefore the motivation in summarising work to date was, at least in part, to underline and so emphasize the effort made by the CWG so far. However, we also recognise that there remains plenty of work to be done in moving towards a final proposal and being seen to be moving effectively towards that end. Hence the focus on working methods and process (CWG meeting on Wednesday in Singapore) AND on taking feedback on the substance (Q&A session on Thursday in Singapore).

In any event, we are committed to working with the group including; confronting the difficult issues, looking for compromise where necessary and then producing a timely proposal. Of course, we need the group's commitment to the same.

From a practical perspective, we do need to process and integrate the input from the meeting, consolidate our working method and plans going forward and diarise key dates for the CWG. We will work with staff and the CWG to do all this as soon as possible. The points in the thread about highlighting areas of agreement as well as disagreement and the defining the next steps and timeline are consistent with this approach.

Please note: The next <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> CWG-Stewardship working meeting is scheduled for 19 February from 11:00-13:00 UTC. There are plans for another face to face meeting on 25 - 27 March 2015. Thank-you Lise & Jonathan From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] Sent: 16 February 2015 08:40 To: Kieren McCarthy Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting Without clear and straightforward communication, the end result will be deals done at the last minute by a select few, which will then cause resentment and frustration in all those that have invested a lot of time and trouble in the process but weren't one of final arbiters. (ICANN's biggest problem writ large.) Can I please encourage people to be open and fair. And show leadership rather than pump out policy pap dressed up as diplomacy. Perhaps a slightly less dyed-in-the wool attitude to what ICANN 'will do' and what the Board 'will do' might also go some way to helping. Cheers, Chris On 14 Feb 2015, at 11:02 , Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote: I'll joyfully flag up that I am in agreement with you on this one, Milton. Not necessarily on who the audience should be, but on the sort of content that needs to be included. If the chairs don't feel able to state clearly what the issues are, or highlight specific aspects of agreement/disagreement in non-coded language, but instead resort to largely meaningless updates to people who are already following things anyway, it does not bode well for real progress. Without clear and straightforward communication, the end result will be deals done at the last minute by a select few, which will then cause resentment and frustration in all those that have invested a lot of time and trouble in the process but weren't one of final arbiters. (ICANN's biggest problem writ large.) Can I please encourage people to be open and fair. And show leadership rather than pump out policy pap dressed up as diplomacy. Kieren On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote: In response to Kieren, I think it is common-sensical, not critical, to ask who the audience of this statement is. I actually believe that the primary audience is CWG members and participants themselves, with the secondary audience being the people within the broader community who want to know what kind of progress we are making. CWG members & participants need a sharper sense of where we are post Singapore and what we plan to do in the near term. To my mind the statement fails to reflect certain key facts about the current situation: . The group is still divided over 'internal' and 'external' solutions . The Wednesday 'working' session in Singapore did nothing to advance or even to engage debate on that issue, but the Thursday session did start to clarify some issue by listening to feedback on some (not all) of the 9 questions posed to the community . The statement does not make it clear what process will be used to obtain additional feedback on the 9 questions, or what the timeline for that is . Progress is limited by our need for legal advice, which may rule out or raise further questions about some of the models. . The report _must_ tell us what is the status of the request for legal advice and provide an expected timeline for it. . The statement should reflect Board chair Crocker's statement that NTIA and ICANN expect us to incorporate CCWG WS1 recommendations into our proposal, which makes our timeline critically dependent on CCWG's. My two cents From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:57 AM To: GomesChuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting Respectively, if I could add a critical voice. This long update is all about process and contains very little real information. Who is the audience? It reads as though the audIence is the people on this list congratulating ourselves for all the work we've done. If the intended audience is people not in this list then can I suggest the update be: * Much shorter * Focused on actual details rather than listing meetings * Highlight areas of progress and agreement * Highlight areas of disagreement * list next steps with timeline Cheers Kieren - [sent through phone] On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I would not include the Work to Date and Composition sections and instead provide links. Overall it looks very good to me. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY SR 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date:02/12/2015 6:56 AM (GMT-05:00) To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting To view the original announcement, please see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en The Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions held two sessions at the ICANN 52 Meeting in Singapore (8-12 February 2015): a two-hour <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-cwg-stewardship> working session on Wednesday, and a questions and answers session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-cwg-stewardship> on Thursday. In addition to these sessions, there was participation in sessions hosted by many other groups across the ICANNcommunity, as well as many rewarding conversations and engagements throughout the week on behalf of the co-Chairs, the members and their chartering organizations, the individual participants of the CWG-Stewardship, and the broader multistakeholder community. <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en#foot1> 1 Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting The Wednesday working session focused primarily on reviewing and refining the CWG-Stewardship's working methods. These revisions dedicate the group to working in a committee of the whole moving forward, meeting at minimum once per week and, and building out the converging areas of the Proposal towards developing a final Proposal. As needed, the CWG-Stewardship will funnel specific subjects through expertise-based Task Forces. Task Forces will serve the purpose of developing specific aspects of the Proposal as well as demonstrating incremental progress. Drafts from Task Forces will be brought to the group for review and decision making on inclusion within the draft proposal. The Thursday questions and answers session was focused on receiving community feedback. In preparation for the ICANN 52 Meeting, the CWG-Stewardship created a <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG-SingaporeDisc ussionDocument-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1422998880000&api=v2> Discussion Document [PDF, 447 KB] that attempted to capture and summarize the considerable progress made by this group to date and to encourage community input on key and intractable issues that were addressed in detail on Thursday. The CWG-Stewardship appreciates the high-quality comments and responses received, and expects to devote time in its next meeting on 19 February 2015 to further assess the feedback received. The group remains open to feedback on the specific questions on the Discussion Document, and requests that feedback before the 19 February meeting. Feedback can be provided through a CWG-Stewardship member or participant, or to the support staff ( <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> grace.abuhamad@icann.org) for transmission to the group. Looking Ahead The ICANN 52 meeting maintained much needed focus on the work related to the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANNAccountability. Throughout the meeting the co-Chairs, the members and their chartering organizations, the individual participants of the CWG-Stewardship, and the broader community all dedicated their time to constructive feedback and progress. With the sustained support of the community, the CWG-Stewardship commits to continuing to work at a high-intensity and pace. The group will remain regularly engaged with the community and any interested observers in order to provide updates on its work as well as related elements such as receipt of legal advice, as it did during the <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232656> Webinars on 3 February. Coordination with CCWG-Accountability As agreed to in their <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232471> Joint Statementon 28 January 2015, the Chairs of both the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability committed to attending and participating in each other's sessions at ICANN 52. The CWG-Stewardship recognizes that, wherever possible and appropriate, the group will take advantage of the efforts of the CCWG-Accountability to avoid duplication or overlaps in the work to be done. With this robust coordination, the co-Chairs are assured of the effective progress of the CWG-Stewardship. Work to Date The CWG-Stewardship began its work in October 2014, with regular weekly virtual meetings and a <https://community.icann.org/x/8CLxAg> working meeting at ICANN 51 in Los Angeles, California. In addition to ICANNsupported regular weekly CWG-Stewardship virtual meetings, and at the request of the Chairs, ICANNagreed to support a two-full-day <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-20-en> face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, Germanyon 19-20 November 2014 to advance the work of the group. On 1 December, the CWG-Stewardship published its draft proposal for a 21-day public comment period. Following the <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823498/CWG-Dec01PublicCo nsultFINAL.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1417638162000&api=v2> publication of the draft proposal [PDF, 1.7 MB], between 4 - 6 December, the CWG hosted <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823496> three public webinars to present the draft proposal and engage with the broader community. At the conclusion of the public comment, the CWG-Stewardship dedicated its time to full review and analysis of the feedback received, in particular during an <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232482> intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. As part of the outcome, the group began to study a series of alternative models that had not yet been fully considered. These models were presented in <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232656> two public webinars on 3 February and in a <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG-SingaporeDisc ussionDocument-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1422998880000&api=v2> Discussion Document [PDF, 447 KB] that was released for discussion at ICANN 52 in Singapore. The next <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> CWG-Stewardship working meeting is scheduled for 19 February from 11:00-13:00 UTC. There are plans for another face to face meeting on 25 - 27 March 2015. Composition The CWG consists 138 people, organized as 19 members, appointed by and accountable to chartering organizations, and 119 participants, who participate as individuals. The CWG is an open group: anyone interested in the work of the CWG, can join as a participant. Participants may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group or organization not represented in the CWG or currently active within ICANN, or self-appointed. Of the 138 CWG members and participants, the regional representation is as follows: . 47 Asia/Asia Pacific . 36 Europe . 31 North America . 12 Latin America . 12 Africa Of the 138 CWG members and participants, the stakeholder group representation is as follows: . 47 (no affiliation) . 32 GNSO . 20 GAC . 18 ccNSO/ccTLD . 18 At-Large . 2 SSAC . 1 ASO Also, there are 6 ICG members who participate in the CWG. _____ <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en#note1> 1 For a full list of sessions relevant to the IANA Stewardship Transition, please see <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN A+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> here. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:

...

There are plans for another face to face meeting on 25 - 27 March 2015.

Considering that the CCWG will meet 23-24, i then see the reasoning in setting the CWG date as such; it would most-likely mean both meetings will hold at the same venue (or at least within same region) considering there is representation across both groups. One other advantage is that the CWG members/participants (who can afford extra night) could listen/participate at the CCWG in other to better inform the CWG efforts and vice verse. That said......

...

Bad timing. In the middle of the IETF as I already have pointed out in Singapore.

.......I agree that the week of 22nd-27th indeed makes it a tight one. Having it a week before would mean getting a location that is visa friendly as much as possible (like Turkey if Europe, Kenya if Africa, or USA since most will already have the VISA). Having it a week after would mean going beyond the planned timeline. I can imagine the situation of the chair/staff right now....sorry ;-) It may be worth taking stock of how many will be attending the IETF meeting as that would generally be a factor in determining the location of the meeting even if the date can't be changed. (it will easier for one to jump out of IETF if CWG holds in Dallas for instance) Cheers!

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

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !

Thanks for this note and for listening and reacting accordingly. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:

All,

Picking up on this thread, Lise and I discussed this when we talked this morning. There are some good points made in the thread and we'd like to recognise these.

In particular, we agree that there's an issue with the target audience and therefore the focus and effectiveness of the communication. Emerging from ICANN 52, we felt it was important to communicate immediately at the end of the meeting and to capture some of the key points at the time. We were targeting the message at both the CWG participants and the broader community. However, it seems that a combination of working at speed and with the two audiences in mind, we didn't score right on target with either audience.

From the broader community perspective, some of the feedback we received at ICANN 52 included questioning the overall effectiveness and productivity of the group. Therefore the motivation in summarising work to date was, at least in part, to underline and so emphasize the effort made by the CWG so far. However, we also recognise that there remains plenty of work to be done in moving towards a final proposal and being seen to be moving effectively towards that end. Hence the focus on working methods and process (CWG meeting on Wednesday in Singapore) AND on taking feedback on the substance (Q&A session on Thursday in Singapore).

In any event, we are committed to working with the group including; confronting the difficult issues, looking for compromise where necessary and then producing a timely proposal. Of course, we need the group's commitment to the same.

From a practical perspective, we do need to process and integrate the input from the meeting, consolidate our working method and plans going forward and diarise key dates for the CWG. We will work with staff and the CWG to do all this as soon as possible. The points in the thread about highlighting areas of agreement as well as disagreement and the defining the next steps and timeline are consistent with this approach.

Please note: The next <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> CWG-Stewardship working meeting is scheduled for 19 February from 11:00-13:00 UTC. There are plans for another face to face meeting on 25 - 27 March 2015.

Thank-you

Lise & Jonathan

From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] Sent: 16 February 2015 08:40 To: Kieren McCarthy Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting

Without clear and straightforward communication, the end result will be deals done at the last minute by a select few, which will then cause resentment and frustration in all those that have invested a lot of time and trouble in the process but weren't one of final arbiters. (ICANN's biggest problem writ large.) Can I please encourage people to be open and fair. And show leadership rather than pump out policy pap dressed up as diplomacy.

Perhaps a slightly less dyed-in-the wool attitude to what ICANN 'will do' and what the Board 'will do' might also go some way to helping.

Cheers,

Chris

On 14 Feb 2015, at 11:02 , Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote: I'll joyfully flag up that I am in agreement with you on this one, Milton.

Not necessarily on who the audience should be, but on the sort of content that needs to be included.

If the chairs don't feel able to state clearly what the issues are, or highlight specific aspects of agreement/disagreement in non-coded language, but instead resort to largely meaningless updates to people who are already following things anyway, it does not bode well for real progress.

Without clear and straightforward communication, the end result will be deals done at the last minute by a select few, which will then cause resentment and frustration in all those that have invested a lot of time and trouble in the process but weren't one of final arbiters. (ICANN's biggest problem writ large.)

Can I please encourage people to be open and fair. And show leadership rather than pump out policy pap dressed up as diplomacy.

Kieren

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote: In response to Kieren, I think it is common-sensical, not critical, to ask who the audience of this statement is.

I actually believe that the primary audience is CWG members and participants themselves, with the secondary audience being the people within the broader community who want to know what kind of progress we are making. CWG members & participants need a sharper sense of where we are post Singapore and what we plan to do in the near term.

To my mind the statement fails to reflect certain key facts about the current situation:

. The group is still divided over 'internal' and 'external' solutions . The Wednesday 'working' session in Singapore did nothing to advance or even to engage debate on that issue, but the Thursday session did start to clarify some issue by listening to feedback on some (not all) of the 9 questions posed to the community . The statement does not make it clear what process will be used to obtain additional feedback on the 9 questions, or what the timeline for that is . Progress is limited by our need for legal advice, which may rule out or raise further questions about some of the models. . The report _must_ tell us what is the status of the request for legal advice and provide an expected timeline for it. . The statement should reflect Board chair Crocker's statement that NTIA and ICANN expect us to incorporate CCWG WS1 recommendations into our proposal, which makes our timeline critically dependent on CCWG's.

My two cents

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:57 AM To: GomesChuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting

Respectively, if I could add a critical voice.

This long update is all about process and contains very little real information.

Who is the audience? It reads as though the audIence is the people on this list congratulating ourselves for all the work we've done.

If the intended audience is people not in this list then can I suggest the update be:

* Much shorter * Focused on actual details rather than listing meetings * Highlight areas of progress and agreement * Highlight areas of disagreement * list next steps with timeline

Cheers

Kieren - [sent through phone]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I would not include the Work to Date and Composition sections and instead provide links. Overall it looks very good to me.

Chuck

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY SR 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date:02/12/2015 6:56 AM (GMT-05:00) To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting To view the original announcement, please see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en The Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions held two sessions at the ICANN 52 Meeting in Singapore (8-12 February 2015): a two-hour <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-cwg-stewardship> working session on Wednesday, and a questions and answers session <http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-cwg-stewardship> on Thursday. In addition to these sessions, there was participation in sessions hosted by many other groups across the ICANNcommunity, as well as many rewarding conversations and engagements throughout the week on behalf of the co-Chairs, the members and their chartering organizations, the individual participants of the CWG-Stewardship, and the broader multistakeholder community. <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en#foot1> 1 Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting The Wednesday working session focused primarily on reviewing and refining the CWG-Stewardship's working methods. These revisions dedicate the group to working in a committee of the whole moving forward, meeting at minimum once per week and, and building out the converging areas of the Proposal towards developing a final Proposal. As needed, the CWG-Stewardship will funnel specific subjects through expertise-based Task Forces. Task Forces will serve the purpose of developing specific aspects of the Proposal as well as demonstrating incremental progress. Drafts from Task Forces will be brought to the group for review and decision making on inclusion within the draft proposal. The Thursday questions and answers session was focused on receiving community feedback. In preparation for the ICANN 52 Meeting, the CWG-Stewardship created a <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG-SingaporeDisc ussionDocument-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1422998880000&api=v2> Discussion Document [PDF, 447 KB] that attempted to capture and summarize the considerable progress made by this group to date and to encourage community input on key and intractable issues that were addressed in detail on Thursday. The CWG-Stewardship appreciates the high-quality comments and responses received, and expects to devote time in its next meeting on 19 February 2015 to further assess the feedback received. The group remains open to feedback on the specific questions on the Discussion Document, and requests that feedback before the 19 February meeting. Feedback can be provided through a CWG-Stewardship member or participant, or to the support staff ( <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> grace.abuhamad@icann.org) for transmission to the group. Looking Ahead The ICANN 52 meeting maintained much needed focus on the work related to the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANNAccountability. Throughout the meeting the co-Chairs, the members and their chartering organizations, the individual participants of the CWG-Stewardship, and the broader community all dedicated their time to constructive feedback and progress. With the sustained support of the community, the CWG-Stewardship commits to continuing to work at a high-intensity and pace. The group will remain regularly engaged with the community and any interested observers in order to provide updates on its work as well as related elements such as receipt of legal advice, as it did during the <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232656> Webinars on 3 February. Coordination with CCWG-Accountability As agreed to in their <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232471> Joint Statementon 28 January 2015, the Chairs of both the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability committed to attending and participating in each other's sessions at ICANN 52. The CWG-Stewardship recognizes that, wherever possible and appropriate, the group will take advantage of the efforts of the CCWG-Accountability to avoid duplication or overlaps in the work to be done. With this robust coordination, the co-Chairs are assured of the effective progress of the CWG-Stewardship. Work to Date The CWG-Stewardship began its work in October 2014, with regular weekly virtual meetings and a <https://community.icann.org/x/8CLxAg> working meeting at ICANN 51 in Los Angeles, California. In addition to ICANNsupported regular weekly CWG-Stewardship virtual meetings, and at the request of the Chairs, ICANNagreed to support a two-full-day <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-11-20-en> face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, Germanyon 19-20 November 2014 to advance the work of the group. On 1 December, the CWG-Stewardship published its draft proposal for a 21-day public comment period. Following the <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823498/CWG-Dec01PublicCo nsultFINAL.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1417638162000&api=v2> publication of the draft proposal [PDF, 1.7 MB], between 4 - 6 December, the CWG hosted <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823496> three public webinars to present the draft proposal and engage with the broader community. At the conclusion of the public comment, the CWG-Stewardship dedicated its time to full review and analysis of the feedback received, in particular during an <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232482> intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. As part of the outcome, the group began to study a series of alternative models that had not yet been fully considered. These models were presented in <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232656> two public webinars on 3 February and in a <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG-SingaporeDisc ussionDocument-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1422998880000&api=v2> Discussion Document [PDF, 447 KB] that was released for discussion at ICANN 52 in Singapore. The next <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> CWG-Stewardship working meeting is scheduled for 19 February from 11:00-13:00 UTC. There are plans for another face to face meeting on 25 - 27 March 2015. Composition The CWG consists 138 people, organized as 19 members, appointed by and accountable to chartering organizations, and 119 participants, who participate as individuals. The CWG is an open group: anyone interested in the work of the CWG, can join as a participant. Participants may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group or organization not represented in the CWG or currently active within ICANN, or self-appointed. Of the 138 CWG members and participants, the regional representation is as follows: . 47 Asia/Asia Pacific . 36 Europe . 31 North America . 12 Latin America . 12 Africa Of the 138 CWG members and participants, the stakeholder group representation is as follows: . 47 (no affiliation) . 32 GNSO . 20 GAC . 18 ccNSO/ccTLD . 18 At-Large . 2 SSAC . 1 ASO Also, there are 6 ICG members who participate in the CWG. _____ <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en#note1> 1 For a full list of sessions relevant to the IANA Stewardship Transition, please see <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN A+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> here.

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

Dear colleagues, On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 05:06:25AM -0800, Kieren McCarthy wrote:

There are a few signs that ICANN corporate is being a little more open minded and helpful than in most of the previous SEVEN accountability reviews (but not all).

But when it comes to non-cosmetic changes, particularly over ICANN corporate's unquestionable final authority, I have seen only critical and defensive responses, as well as accusations of bad faith and various efforts to undermine the commenter - the same pattern that has played out for over a decade.

This is not to pick on Kieren McCarthy, but those paragraphs where helpful to hang my remarks on. I've been thinking about something along these lines since Singapore and thought I'd take this occasion to send. It seems to me that we heard in Singapore some pretty strong suggestions from parts of the community that we ought to concentrate on the narrow question of the IANA transition and how to make those arrangements at least as reliable and safe as the current arrangements are. In my opinion, Larry Strickling also asked some pretty pointed questions about this group's focus on that narrow issue. It seems to me that the IETF and RIRs have come up with fairly narrow discussions of their issues, and have focussed on the specific issues for their communities. I do not pretend that things are just the same in the names community, because of the way the IANA names functions and the policy functions are located in the same organization. But perhaps we could focus on the exact places where the existing organizational boundaries inside ICANN (for the IANA function) are, and see whether there is a sort of "accountability interface" that could be placed there. This is an admittedly less ambitious approach than the proposals that have been previously circulated, but I wonder whether this might not cut the problem down to a manageable size. It seems to me that much of the conceptual work that has been done could be re-jigged to match that narrower task, too, and so we might be able to make speedy progress. Of course, that still leaves us with a difficult dependency, because the CCWG-Accountability work would need to complete and be compatible with what we might suggest. But I think that is manageable, it's in any case a requirement, and it allows us to declare general discussions of, "wWhat if the Board does X?" out of scope here. Does this seem in any way a helpful direction, or am I off my gourd? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

+1 On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew,

I don't think you are off your gourd.

Greg

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

...

Dear colleagues,

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 05:06:25AM -0800, Kieren McCarthy wrote:

...

There are a few signs that ICANN corporate is being a little more open

minded and helpful than in most of the previous SEVEN accountability reviews (but not all).

...

But when it comes to non-cosmetic changes, particularly over ICANN

corporate's unquestionable final authority, I have seen only critical and defensive responses, as well as accusations of bad faith and various efforts to undermine the commenter - the same pattern that has played out for over a decade.

...

This is not to pick on Kieren McCarthy, but those paragraphs where helpful to hang my remarks on. I've been thinking about something along these lines since Singapore and thought I'd take this occasion to send.

It seems to me that we heard in Singapore some pretty strong suggestions from parts of the community that we ought to concentrate on the narrow question of the IANA transition and how to make those arrangements at least as reliable and safe as the current arrangements are. In my opinion, Larry Strickling also asked some pretty pointed questions about this group's focus on that narrow issue.

It seems to me that the IETF and RIRs have come up with fairly narrow discussions of their issues, and have focussed on the specific issues for their communities. I do not pretend that things are just the same in the names community, because of the way the IANA names functions and the policy functions are located in the same organization. But perhaps we could focus on the exact places where the existing organizational boundaries inside ICANN (for the IANA function) are, and see whether there is a sort of "accountability interface" that could be placed there. This is an admittedly less ambitious approach than the proposals that have been previously circulated, but I wonder whether this might not cut the problem down to a manageable size. It seems to me that much of the conceptual work that has been done could be re-jigged to match that narrower task, too, and so we might be able to make speedy progress.

Of course, that still leaves us with a difficult dependency, because the CCWG-Accountability work would need to complete and be compatible with what we might suggest. But I think that is manageable, it's in any case a requirement, and it allows us to declare general discussions of, "wWhat if the Board does X?" out of scope here.

Does this seem in any way a helpful direction, or am I off my gourd?

Best regards,

A

-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

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

Andrew:

It seems to me that we heard in Singapore some pretty strong suggestions from parts of the community that we ought to concentrate on the narrow question of the IANA transition and how to make those arrangements at

To me, "narrow" is code for "let's pretend that NTIA oversight with contracting authority wasn't an critical and essential aspect of the status quo." In other words, this approach seems like a way of pretending that we don't need significant new accountability mechanisms to deal with the post-NTIA world.

It seems to me that the IETF and RIRs have come up with fairly narrow discussions of their issues, and have focussed on the specific issues for their

Yes, but IETF and RIRs both are independent entities capable of contracting with IANA and separating from ICANN as IANA functions provider if need be. Therefore they have in hand the most simple and significant accountability check. Some of us are trying to achieve the same thing with respect to names.

I do not pretend that things are just the same in the names community, because of the way the IANA names functions and the policy functions are located in the same organization. But perhaps we could focus on the exact places where the existing organizational boundaries inside ICANN (for the IANA function) are, and see whether there is a sort of "accountability interface" that could be placed there.

But this is precisely what the new Integrated model is attempting to do, if I understand it correctly. What is your opinion of that?

This is an admittedly less ambitious approach than the proposals that have been previously circulated, but I wonder whether this might not cut the problem down to a manageable size.

I don't know whether your approach is "less" or "more" ambitious because it is not sufficiently specified. All you are doing now is offering a verbal description at best, and an internal solution at worst. And the latter simply shifts the problem to bylaw changes and accountability changes within ICANN. Those will, as I am sure we will discover when we get a legal advice, prove to be just as complicated and difficult as either the structural separation proposed by the new integration model or the external Contracting Co solution.

It seems to me that much of the conceptual work that has been done could be re-jigged to match that narrower task, too, and so we might be able to make speedy progress.

This is a false hope. Either the community has separability or it doesn't. It is a binary possibility in the end.

Does this seem in any way a helpful direction, or am I off my gourd?

No one thinks you are off your gourd. But you are in my opinion simply sugar-coating the problem in a way that does not really move the discussion forward. If you are holding the RIRs and IETF up as successful models, please tell us how the names community can achieve the same level of accountability.

Milton, 1. I understood the CWG co-chairs extended the time for written input to the 9 questions by 1 week (22 Feb or similar). The CWG shall then evaluate the answers. 2. The constituencies and SGs on constituency day have intensively discussed the transition models so far drafted. There were various approaches voiced – at least in the GNSO council session: a) wait for input expected from the legal advice b) develop assessment criteria from const./SG point of view c) develop an “integrated” model I think that’s a program! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:30 AM To: Kieren McCarthy ; GomesChuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting In response to Kieren, I think it is common-sensical, not critical, to ask who the audience of this statement is. I actually believe that the primary audience is CWG members and participants themselves, with the secondary audience being the people within the broader community who want to know what kind of progress we are making. CWG members & participants need a sharper sense of where we are post Singapore and what we plan to do in the near term. To my mind the statement fails to reflect certain key facts about the current situation: · The group is still divided over ‘internal’ and ‘external’ solutions · The Wednesday ‘working’ session in Singapore did nothing to advance or even to engage debate on that issue, but the Thursday session did start to clarify some issue by listening to feedback on some (not all) of the 9 questions posed to the community · The statement does not make it clear what process will be used to obtain additional feedback on the 9 questions, or what the timeline for that is · Progress is limited by our need for legal advice, which may rule out or raise further questions about some of the models. · The report _must_ tell us what is the status of the request for legal advice and provide an expected timeline for it. · The statement should reflect Board chair Crocker’s statement that NTIA and ICANN expect us to incorporate CCWG WS1 recommendations into our proposal, which makes our timeline critically dependent on CCWG’s. My two cents From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:57 AM To: GomesChuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting Respectively, if I could add a critical voice. This long update is all about process and contains very little real information. Who is the audience? It reads as though the audIence is the people on this list congratulating ourselves for all the work we've done. If the intended audience is people not in this list then can I suggest the update be: * Much shorter * Focused on actual details rather than listing meetings * Highlight areas of progress and agreement * Highlight areas of disagreement * list next steps with timeline Cheers Kieren - [sent through phone] On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: I would not include the Work to Date and Composition sections and instead provide links. Overall it looks very good to me. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date:02/12/2015 6:56 AM (GMT-05:00) To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting To view the original announcement, please see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en The Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions held two sessions at the ICANN 52 Meeting in Singapore (8-12 February 2015): a two-hour working session on Wednesday, and a questions and answers session on Thursday. In addition to these sessions, there was participation in sessions hosted by many other groups across the ICANNcommunity, as well as many rewarding conversations and engagements throughout the week on behalf of the co-Chairs, the members and their chartering organizations, the individual participants of the CWG-Stewardship, and the broader multistakeholder community.1 Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting The Wednesday working session focused primarily on reviewing and refining the CWG-Stewardship's working methods. These revisions dedicate the group to working in a committee of the whole moving forward, meeting at minimum once per week and, and building out the converging areas of the Proposal towards developing a final Proposal. As needed, the CWG-Stewardship will funnel specific subjects through expertise-based Task Forces. Task Forces will serve the purpose of developing specific aspects of the Proposal as well as demonstrating incremental progress. Drafts from Task Forces will be brought to the group for review and decision making on inclusion within the draft proposal. The Thursday questions and answers session was focused on receiving community feedback. In preparation for the ICANN 52 Meeting, the CWG-Stewardship created a Discussion Document [PDF, 447 KB] that attempted to capture and summarize the considerable progress made by this group to date and to encourage community input on key and intractable issues that were addressed in detail on Thursday. The CWG-Stewardship appreciates the high-quality comments and responses received, and expects to devote time in its next meeting on 19 February 2015 to further assess the feedback received. The group remains open to feedback on the specific questions on the Discussion Document, and requests that feedback before the 19 February meeting. Feedback can be provided through a CWG-Stewardship member or participant, or to the support staff (grace.abuhamad@icann.org) for transmission to the group. Looking Ahead The ICANN 52 meeting maintained much needed focus on the work related to the IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANNAccountability. Throughout the meeting the co-Chairs, the members and their chartering organizations, the individual participants of the CWG-Stewardship, and the broader community all dedicated their time to constructive feedback and progress. With the sustained support of the community, the CWG-Stewardship commits to continuing to work at a high-intensity and pace. The group will remain regularly engaged with the community and any interested observers in order to provide updates on its work as well as related elements such as receipt of legal advice, as it did during the Webinars on 3 February. Coordination with CCWG-Accountability As agreed to in their Joint Statementon 28 January 2015, the Chairs of both the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability committed to attending and participating in each other's sessions at ICANN 52. The CWG-Stewardship recognizes that, wherever possible and appropriate, the group will take advantage of the efforts of the CCWG-Accountability to avoid duplication or overlaps in the work to be done. With this robust coordination, the co-Chairs are assured of the effective progress of the CWG-Stewardship. Work to Date The CWG-Stewardship began its work in October 2014, with regular weekly virtual meetings and a working meeting at ICANN 51 in Los Angeles, California. In addition to ICANNsupported regular weekly CWG-Stewardship virtual meetings, and at the request of the Chairs, ICANNagreed to support a two-full-day face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, Germanyon 19-20 November 2014 to advance the work of the group. On 1 December, the CWG-Stewardship published its draft proposal for a 21-day public comment period. Following the publication of the draft proposal [PDF, 1.7 MB], between 4 – 6 December, the CWG hosted three public webinars to present the draft proposal and engage with the broader community. At the conclusion of the public comment, the CWG-Stewardship dedicated its time to full review and analysis of the feedback received, in particular during an intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. As part of the outcome, the group began to study a series of alternative models that had not yet been fully considered. These models were presented in two public webinars on 3 February and in a Discussion Document [PDF, 447 KB] that was released for discussion at ICANN 52 in Singapore. The next CWG-Stewardship working meeting is scheduled for 19 February from 11:00-13:00 UTC. There are plans for another face to face meeting on 25 – 27 March 2015. Composition The CWG consists 138 people, organized as 19 members, appointed by and accountable to chartering organizations, and 119 participants, who participate as individuals. The CWG is an open group: anyone interested in the work of the CWG, can join as a participant. Participants may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group or organization not represented in the CWG or currently active within ICANN, or self-appointed. Of the 138 CWG members and participants, the regional representation is as follows: · 47 Asia/Asia Pacific · 36 Europe · 31 North America · 12 Latin America · 12 Africa Of the 138 CWG members and participants, the stakeholder group representation is as follows: · 47 (no affiliation) · 32 GNSO · 20 GAC · 18 ccNSO/ccTLD · 18 At-Large · 2 SSAC · 1 ASO Also, there are 6 ICG members who participate in the CWG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 For a full list of sessions relevant to the IANA Stewardship Transition, please see here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship