<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I would hope that goes without saying!</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Gomes, Chuck <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Accepting that Greg, I wonder if we should have language saying that neither SO should not unreasonably block an action that only impacts the other SO? Or
maybe this isn’t needed.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Chuck<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Greg Shatan [mailto:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:30 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info" target="_blank">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>; Alan Greenberg; CWG</span></p><div><div class="h5"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June<u></u><u></u></div></div><p></p><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Chuck,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">If I understand your point correctly, I don't think that's correct. Both of the SOs must approve. Each does not mean either, it means both.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Greg<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Gomes, Chuck <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Another reason for using ‘each’ is that in some cases a problem may be essentially just a cc problem
or just a g problem and in those cases it may not be appropriate for one of the SOs to be able to block an action.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Chuck</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jonathan Robinson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:26 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Greg Shatan'</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'CWG'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Alan,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thank-you for your acceptance of the current wording.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Please note that from my recall, Sidley proposed the introduction of “each” as legally
less ambiguous. I believe the chat record from Tuesday’s meeting will confirm this but haven’t yet checked.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">If this is so, I suggest we stick with it (each).</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Jonathan</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Alan Greenberg [<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 11 June 2015 04:46<br>
<b>To:</b> Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Cc:</b> CWG<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB">Understood. But to ensure proper intent and translation, I think less potentially ambiguous.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 10/06/2015 08:34 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Each means both in this sentence. (A bill requires approval of each house of Congress before it is sent to the President.)<br>
Either would mean one or the other.<br>
<br>
That said both also works.<br>
<br>
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a> > wrote:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">A few minutes late, but...</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">In paragraph 125, page 24 of V4, I can live with the current wording about the optional Public Comment but meaningful AC/SO consultation.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">However, the wording change I requested to clarify that the BOTH the ccNSO and GNSO approval is needed was not made.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">...triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils ...</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">should read</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">...triggered by a supermajority vote of BOTH of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils...</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">(Caps added to highlight the change in this message. The "of" following "both" is probably not needed.)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Alan</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">At 09/06/2015 10:59 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Forwarding again to Client Committee. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">From: Grace Abuhamad <<a href="mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org%20" target="_blank">grace.abuhamad@icann.org
</a>></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:46 PM</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">To: Brenda Brewer <<a href="mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org%20" target="_blank">brenda.brewer@icann.org
</a>>, " <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>" <
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59UTC on 10 June</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Dear all, </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">During our meeting today, we had our 3rd and final reading of the Proposal. Changes were made live, and outstanding changes were noted as action items (see notes below). The staff team has reviewed the proposal and completed all actions listed.
Please note that Sidley will provide a final review as well which includes some work on the implementation text in Section IV and the Term Sheet in Annex S.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">With this, the CWG-Stewardship now enters into a final review period that lasts until
<span style="color:red">23:59 UTC tomorrow (10 June)</span>. As noted on the call, the intention of the review period is to do a ‘proofread’ and notify the group of any errors. During this period of 26 hours, any statements or comments on the Proposal may
also be sent to the group. As the Chairs noted on the call, if you are making a statement, please be sure to identify whether you do so as a member on behalf of a Chartering Organization, as an individual representing a specific organization, or as an individual
with a personal remark/contribution. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">After 23:59 UTC on 10 June, the Chairs will work with staff to rectify any errors, update section VI.C. regarding statements, and deliver the Proposal to the Chartering Organizations on 11 June. Our call on 11 June will focus on how the CWG-Stewardship
does its engagement, through its members and participants, to coalesce support for the Proposal among Chartering Organizations. In addition, there are two webinars on 11 June (one at 06:00 UTC and one at 13:00 UTC):
<a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en</a>. These webinars aim to provide a briefing to the broader community about the contents of the final proposal. Finally, as
we head into ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, please refer to the schedule of sessions that relate to the CWG-Stewardship work:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw</a>.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Thank you all for your great work and dedication to the process. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the process or administration over the next 48h.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Best, </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Gramika (Grace+Marika)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">From: Brenda Brewer <<a href="mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org%20" target="_blank">brenda.brewer@icann.org
</a>></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">To: " <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">
cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>" < <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">
cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #58 9 June 2015</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Dear all, </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 58 on 9 June 2015 are available here:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032" target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Kind regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Brenda</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<h2 style="margin-left:.5in"><span lang="EN-GB">Action Items</span><u></u><u></u></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Paragraph 108: Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary"
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Paragraph 134: Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee"
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<h2 style="margin-left:.5in"><span lang="EN-GB">Notes</span><u></u><u></u></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">1. Opening Remarks</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">· A big thanks to all who contributed to edits. </span>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">· Following closure of this meeting, staff will send final document to the CWG.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">· CWG will then have 24h to notify the group of any errors. Intention is not to reopen issues, but to focus on proofing --> DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">· Chairs will transmit to SO/ACs on 11 June with covering note.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Can expect a final version to be circulated in the next 24h. Staff is working on consistency-checking across the responses. The document is frozen as of 1 June.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">The letter and responses from ICANN are posted on Wiki: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw" target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw. </a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Staff have included the responses in Section IV (and included an Annex to for the Finance information).
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">4. Last Review of Final Proposal </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">On screen now is version 5. The difference between the previous version and the latest is that the Chairs took some time to review which items were still open and which had been resolved. Tried to focus CWG on the key outstanding issues.
This latest version also includes the DT-A annex which has now been included. </span>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Paragraph 108: Change the wording from "ringfence" to "isolate" and remove the definition in the footnote. ICANN has control and ownership of PTI and the implementation documents will assure against further transfer out of assets.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" </span>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Paragraph 121/ Footnote 11: footnote is satisfactory. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Paragraph 125: make clear "supermajority from both" ccNSO and GNSO. Also including the CSC as part of the remit.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Paragraph 128: covered by resolution in paragraph 121</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Paragraph 134: SLEs discussion -- principles are included in annex and summary is included in the section now.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee"
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Annex G: edit to the Remedial Action Procedures table</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Term Sheet: staff to revise with comments from Sidley and Greg
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">5. Overall Timeline / Milestones</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB"> a. Communications</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB"> b. Webinars on 11 June</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB"> c. Sessions at ICANN 53</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">6. AOB</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB"> a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB"> b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB"> c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">7. Closing Remarks</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">After proposal is sent, 24h to respond with comments or statements DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB"> <br>
<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">_______________________________________________</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB">Cwg-client mailing list</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB"><a href="mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org" target="_blank">Cwg-client@icann.org</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">
<span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>