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

Tue Apr 21 17:02:44 UTC 2015

Hi Martin,

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
wrote:

>  I think that Greg is right, that we were not mandated in the CWG to look
> at numbers or protocol parameters.  While that might sit uneasily, I’m not
> sure I really know about the flow of funding or the
> accountability/stewardship role in the light of Milton’s assertion.
>

I am not sure Greg is implying what you stated above. The CWG proposal is
indeed moving IANA to PTI which includes everything related to the other 2
communities (perhaps except existing MOUs which ofcourse is not yet clear)

>
>
> Specifically asking CRISP & IANAPLAN for views as to where they would see
> their relationship lying (given the ring-fencing of the IANA functions
> operator into a subsidiary in ICANN) would seem to me to be appropriate.
> They could, after all, contract/sign an MoU with either ICANN or ICANN’s
> affiliate.
>

This was exactly what i had earlier suggested; If our proposal is going to
affect the other communities in the manner we are proposing, i think it
saves us a lot of time by flagging the respective communities to know their
thoughts before our public comment. Instead of submitting and then having
ICG come back to us....and as a matter of fact, it think it will be an act
of "courtesy" if that is done. (again i know CRISP formerly indicated that
they are open to receive such interaction, i expect same with IETF as well)

Regards

>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* 21 April 2015 17:14
> *To:* CW Lists
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3
>
>
>
> I agree with Alissa that this needs to be clarified.  Some of the lack of
> clarity is due to concern about having a proposal that goes beyond naming
> functions.  This has resulted in some odd phrasings and odd proposals.
>
>
>
> In my view, splitting the IANA personnel and assets so this is a
> "names-only" proposal is unrealistic and unnecessary. Because we are within
> ICANN, we have a different relationship to the IANA Functions group.  We
> should make it clear that the whole ball of wax would move to PTI, and put
> that out for public comment.  We should flag this specifically for the
> CRISP and IANAPLAN group.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150421/883b13fe/attachment-0001.html>