<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>Manal:</div><div><br></div><div>I have been thinking about this part of your assessment:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; text-indent: -0.25in; "><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Symbol; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span><span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman'; "> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></span><span dir="LTR"></span><b><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Dependency on CCWG proposal: </span></b><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)</span><b><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></b><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Worth noting that it was agreed by the ICG at its meeting in Buenos Aires that once CCWG Workstream1 output<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">is</span><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">sent to SOs/ACs for approval, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that the CCWG's work meets its requirements. Hence final transition proposal is pending<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">CWG confirmation that<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">CCWG final proposal</span><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>meets its requirements</span><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div></span></blockquote></div><br><div>I do not think that the ICG should ask CWG-Stewardship whether the CCWG-Accountability result meets its requirements. Instead, it would be much more powerful for the chartering SOs and ACs to state that they have reached consensus on the CCWG-Accountability result and that they have determined that the CCWG-Accountability result completely meets the requirements set forth in the CWG-Stewardship proposal. Getting this confirmation from the chartering SOs and ACs seems a more powerful demonstration of consensus for the combined proposal.</div><div><br></div><div>Russ</div></body></html>