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

[Paul M Kane - CWG]

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-strickling-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.
> 
>
****************************************************************************************************
> 
>