[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts

Wed Apr 22 06:08:17 UTC 2015

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 21 Apr 2015 23:04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client at icann.org>
wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Following up on today’s call, below is proposed language for III. A and
Annex L.
>
>
>
> III.A.
>
>
>
> [to replace current first two bullets]
>
>
>
> •          A new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would
be formed as an affiliate of ICANN.  The existing IANA naming functions,
administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how
would be legally transferred into PTI.
>
>
SO: "IANA naming functions," this item was one of what I raised in my
comment which Greg forwarded to client( unfortunately I did not get
response on), I am unclear why that phrase is still maintained. The
understanding i got was that PTI will be the new IANA operator
post-transition so again how does the message above put that in context?

>
> •          ICANN would enter into a contract with PTI, granting PTI the
rights and obligations to serve as the IANA Functions Operator for the
naming functions.  This contract would also include service level
agreements for the naming functions.
>
>
SO:
Again this validates my comment above; is PTI no longer going to be IANA
function operator but IANA *names* function operator? Are we trying to
split the functions and divide IANA staff, funding, resources et all?

This seem unclear and can be complicated.

That said, I hope we are not too focused on legal possibilities at the
expense of operational realities.

I rest my case.

Regards

>
> Annex L:
>
>
>
> Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
>
> An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to
initiate a separation of the IANA Functions Operator.  This recommendation
would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration, with ultimate
input by the multistakeholder community through the CCWG Accountability
mechanisms under consideration.(1)
>
> (1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review
recommendation for separation should first be submitted to the Supporting
Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation
to the ICANN Board, or whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for
separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA
Function Review Team.
>
>
>
>
>
> SHARON FLANAGAN
> Partner
>
> Sidley Austin LLP
> +1.415.772.1271
> sflanagan at sidley.com
>
>
>
> From: cwg-client-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Client Committee List for CWG
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:22 PM
> To: Client Committee
> Subject: [client com] FW: Notes CWG Meeting #42 on Tuesday 21 April at
17:00 UTC
>
>
>
> Client Committee — Here below are the notes from the call we just ended.
>
>
>
> Timeline attached and also on the Wiki.
>
>
>
> CWG Meeting #42 on Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC
>
>
>
> Agenda:
>
> 1. Opening Remarks
>
> 2. Open items on Draft Proposal 3.4
>
>      a. To be resolved by Design Teams?
>
>      b. To be resolved by CWG?
>
>      c. To be resolved during Public Comment?
>
> 3. Public Comment
>
>      a. Structure
>
>      b. Associated Communications
>
>      c. Role of CWG Members
>
> 4. Timeline
>
> 5. AOB
>
> 6. Closing Remarks
>
>
>
> Notes:
>
>
>
> 1. Opening Remarks
>
> ·         Last call before the launch of the Public Comment on the 2nd
Draft Proposal.
>
> ·         We've converged on one proposal for structure
>
> ·         Today, we'd like to conclude on the last DTs and the
outstandings items.
>
> ·         Need dependencies for CCWG-Accountability to be clarified and
noted
>
>
>
> 2. Open items on Draft Proposal 3.4
>
> The following three items are "aide-memoire" to help think through open
issues and how to address them.
>
>      a. To be resolved by Design Teams?
>
>      b. To be resolved by CWG?
>
>      c. To be resolved during Public Comment?
>
>
>
> Section III starts on page 17
>
> Going through Sidley comments
>
> Change review period text to "every 5 years"
>
> Page 22, section on IANA Function Review -- help with language from Sidley
>
> Page 17, "ICANN to continue as IFO" -- help with language from Sidley
>
> For DT-A, placeholder text needed because the DT is not complete: capture
that significant work has been done to date, but not all are agreed. -->
suggest general statement instead
>
>
>
> Action (Alan): provide the text for point 4 (after CCWG-Acct meeting)
>
> Action (Staff): do a thorough copyedit
>
> Action (Sidley): propose language for Section III and Annex L
>
>
>
> 3. Public Comment
>
>
>
>      a. Structure
>
> ·         As discussed in Istanbul, staff prepared a template for the
comments to be submitted.
>
> ·         The template will be presented in Word and PDF formats (the PDF
will be fillable)
>
> ·         Use of the template will be strongly encouraged, but not
absolutely obligatory (free form comments are also accepted)
>
> ·         The reason for using a template is to get concrete feedback and
also to faciliate analysis and incorporation of feedback
>
> ·         The template and the Proposal will be published in all ICANN
supported languages
>
>
>
>      b. Associated Communications
>
> ·         There will be a Chairs' Foreword/Summary
>
> ·         There will be an updated version of the Xplane Handout
presented in Istanbul
>
> ·         The idea behind the two documents is that they each provide
background and narrative on the CWG work process: the foreword/summary does
this in a text form, and the XPlane handout provides a visual form.
>
>
>
>      c. Role of CWG Members
>
> Please make sure that CWG Members ensure that their communities are aware
of the comments, the suggested format, and the timeframe for comments.
>
>
>
> 4. Timeline
>
> Will publish timeline to the list to save for time.
>
> (attached here! :)  )
>
>
>
> 5. AOB
>
>
>
> 6. Closing Remarks
>
>
>
>
>
>
****************************************************************************************************
> 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.
>
>
****************************************************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwg-client mailing list
> Cwg-client at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150422/691c3ea6/attachment-0001.html>