[CWG-RFP3] Seperabilty

[Matthew Shears]

Hi

My understanding of where we were at the end of the meeting was that 1) 
we discussed the various options, 2) nothing is decided and 3) there was 
no discussion of consensus (nor from my perspective was there any sense 
that option 2 described by Avri below was the agreed option).   There 
was discussion (and that was all) that it might be preferable to allow 
the Periodic Review Team to make decisions as to what the contract 
period is and what the mechanisms for renewal are.  However, until we 
have discussed the detail as to the composition, independence, powers, 
etc., of the Periodic Review Team I would argue that it is to early to 
suggest that we are anywhere near consensus.

I echo Avri and Milton's concerns.   A proposal that does not fully 
account for the operational _and_ stewardship roles of the NTIA would be 
inadequate.  Strong separability - the ability to withdraw the contract 
from ICANN and to award it to another party through a process that is 
independent of ICANN and based on RFPs and a term-limited contract - is 
essential.   BTW - this is what we have at the moment and it has not 
impaired nor threatened operational stability.

Matthew

On 11/24/2014 8:20 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> >1. Strong separability: every n (n= 2-7?) years a new RFP is released

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141124/633bc31c/attachment.html>