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

[Greg Shatan]

In this instance, I agree with Christopher.  I believe both statements are
accurate (though the first is less than mellifluous in its phrasing).

Greg Shatan

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:36 AM, CW Lists <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
wrote:

> I prefer the existing text, unchanged.
>
> CW
>
>
> On 21 Apr 2015, at 16:47, Brenden Kuerbis <bnkuerbi at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Marika,
>
> The first bullet in Section III.A says:
>
> ICANN, through an affiliate controlled by ICANN, to continue as the IANA
>> Functions Operator for the Naming Related Services through the creation of
>> a separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI).
>
>
> Section III.A.i.a, which is text provided by Sidley in consultation with
> the CWG, says:
>
> A contract would be entered between PTI and ICANN, which would give PTI
>> the rights and obligations as the IANA Functions Operator.
>
>
>
> I believe the latter statement is correct, and the prior bullet is
> inconsistent with it (or at least very unclear). Perhaps Sidley could
> provide more accurate text for the bullet in Section III.A, or I would
> suggest:
>
>
>>    - Creation of a legally separated affiliate, Post-Transition IANA
>>    (PTI), to provide the IANA functions.
>>
>>
> This would be followed by the existing bullets:
>
>
>>    - Establishment of service level agreement between ICANN and PTI, the
>>    IANA Functions Operator for the Naming Related Services.
>>    - Changes proposed to root zone environment and relationship with
>>    root zone maintainer.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- Brenden
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:50 PM, 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-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/eddcae18/attachment-0001.html>