[CWG-RFP3] Proposed Agenda for Wednesday 12 November Meeting

[Guru Acharya]

Hi Greg,

This is excellent work.

The three straw-mans are a good starting point for discussion.

Proposal 1 and 2 look well structured for discussion, and capture much of
the discussion on this list till date.

In contrast, I think Proposal 3 appears to be an outlier. In Proposal 3, I
do not understand the need to create a new legal entity for the oversight
body (PROSI). Since Proposal 3 suggests the creation of a new IANA entity,
the SLA could simply be between ICANN and the new IANA entity. There is no
need for creation of a new legal entity for the oversight body. The current
bulkiness of Proposal 3 makes it the first candidate for rejection.

Regards,
Guru



On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> All:
>
> In the course of preparing for tomorrow's call, including discussions with
> the Co-Chairs of the CWG and other subgroup leads, it was decided that a
> preferred course of action would be to prepare three "Strawman Proposals"
> rather than a single "Framework Document" with multiple variables.  These
> three Strawman Proposals are attached.  The proposals are organized on a
> consistent outline, largely taken from the "Variables" document.  This will
> allow us to consider the proposals both "vertically" and "horizontally"
> (i.e., across the documents), and to swap sections as we move toward the
> ultimate deliverable of a single proposal.  The proposals are intended to
> capture most of the major alternatives discussed on this list, the CWG
> list, and in our calls, as well as in other documents circulated in the
> community.  However, if a particular alternative has not been captured in
> any proposal, that does not mean that it is "dead" or even disfavored.
> Similarly, I expect there will be additional issues to be considered in any
> proposal, and these should be captured as well, either on the call or
> thereafter.
>
> I apologize for the lateness of the hour; I hope you will see that the
> alternatives are not unfamiliar, even if they are now repackaged in
> proposal form.  In our call tomorrow morning, I would like to review and
> work through these proposals in lieu of items 2 and 3 of the agenda.  In
> the course of that review, we should aim to consider pro's and con's, which
> will be added to a document during our call, and then posted or circulated
> for further editing.  I expect that the Strawman Proposals will be
> similarly posted or circulated.
>
> I look forward to our call.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Here is the proposed agenda for the RFP3 subgroup meeting on Wednesday:
>>
>>    1. Welcome and Roll Call
>>    2. Review of Variables Document (link here
>>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PIySH4OEdebff1lU7foynDe8S3PZEvjG2W_UCpJamM/edit?usp=sharing>
>>    )
>>    3. Review of Framework Document (to be circulated before call)
>>    4. Live-Editing of Pros and Cons Document (to be circulated before
>>    call)
>>    5. Thoughts on this sub-group on how best to use time in Frankfurt
>>    6. Assignments for fleshing out parts of Framework Document
>>    7. AOB
>>
>> Best,
>> Grace
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
>> Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
> Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141112/0c03e497/attachment.html>