[CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3

[Alissa Cooper]

I realize it may be too late for this comment but I’m sending it anyway just in case.

I think III.A.i.a and III.A are ambiguous as to whether the existing IANA staff, resources, processes, and data related to the non-naming functions (e.g., numbering and protocol parameters) (1) are expected to move to the PTI, (2) are not expected to move to the PTI, or (3) whether this decision is to be left up to ICANN. I don’t think footnote 5 covers this, because it is not obvious that personnel, resources, etc. count as “arrangements.” Furthermore, the decision of whether to move staff and resources to the PTI and the decision of whether to move an existing contract to the PTI are distinct. For example, the protocol parameters staff could move to the PTI but the IETF-ICANN MOU could remain as-is. So I think for the other communities to be able to comment on the CWG proposal effectively, III.A.i.a needs to make clear which of the three options above the CWG is suggesting.

This issue would be additionally clarified if the document referred to the “IANA naming functions operator” and “IANA naming functions” in all places where the text is describing an arrangement specific to the naming functions (which seems like it would be most places where “IANA functions” is currently used, at least in Section III).

Alissa 

On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Please find attached an updated draft which now incorporates, amongst others, a summary for section III, DT X, information from the legal memo, updates as a result of comments received and proposed text for section IIIB. Note that we’ve also reorganised the annexes to match the flow of the document.
> 
> Please note that that there a number of comments that have been flagged that need further consideration by the different DTs. We would like to encourage the leads of the DTs to pick up on the items that have been flagged for review and provide feedback on those items to the CWG mailing list as soon as possible.
> 
> Also, note that we’ve incorporated those edits and/or comments that we considered corrections and/or clarifications of existing content as well as responses to some of the Sidley comments. If you do not agree with those responses or updates or are of the view that these are more than corrections and/or clarifications, please flag those accordingly. 
> 
> You are encouraged to flag any items that you think warrant CWG consideration by Tuesday 20 April at 16.00 UTC at the latest. Other minor edits and/or clarifications can be submitted until Tuesday 20 April 23.59 UTC.
> 
> For your convenience I’ve attached a redline and clean version both in Word as well as pdf.
> 
> Thanks again for all your feedback!
> 
> Marika 
> <CWG - Draft Final Transition Plan V3.3 - clean - 20 April 2015.pdf><CWG - Draft Final Transition Plan V3.3 - clean - 20 April 2015.doc><CWG - Draft Final Transition Plan V3.3 - 20 April 2015.pdf><CWG - Draft Final Transition Plan V3.3 - 20 April 2015.doc>_______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150421/e1a8a3de/attachment.html>