[client com] [CWG-Stewardship] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal

[Client Committee List for CWG]

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 at icb.co.uk] 
Sent: 20 April 2015 10:22
To: jrobinson at afilias.info
Cc: cwg-client at icann.org; cwg-stewardship at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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.
> 
>
****************************************************************************
************************
> 
>