Hi,

Adma's note seems to be reasonable.

5/30 is way down from half, their normal portion of Ig seats, and if
that will allow them to accept and support the transition process, I do
not see it as harm.

I hope the CG remains a non-voting group.  But even if they don't, it is
not a controlling vote.


As for scope, I think it should remain broad enough to cover all of the
IANA transition related issues that have been discussed in the lead up
to seating the CG.

For example, I think the scope has to include the discussion of how the
links to the transparency process are set?  What are the milestone
dependencies?  And I think it needs to include the question of whether
all the accountability in the world by ICANN can replace the explicit
oversight of an authority that can grant/deny a contract or contract
renewal.  And if not, then what would be the appropriate equivalent
mechanism post transition.

avri

On 12-Jul-14 17:40, Carlos Raúl G. wrote:

> +1
> 
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> +506 8335 2487
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
> 
> El 12/07/2014, a las 14:40, Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> escribió:
> 
>> Five. 
>>
>> Multistakeholder: five from 20 plus. Obvious, no?
>>
>> And if that doesn't make sense, then it's also politically expedient,
>> two not workable for govt. We want this process to work give them what
>> they ask.  (Less than 20%, so really doesn't matter.) 
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>