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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Do you mean that the IFR should also do any necessary RFP &c.?

avri

On 22-Apr-15 11:07, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
>
> Avri,
>
>  
>
> My personal view is that I am not yet convinced by the need for or
> perhaps do not adequately understand the need for the extra (CWG) step.
>
>  
>
> However, as I understand your current wording, it seems to be a
> discretionary step that the IFR may choose to recommend to use or not.
>
> Therefore, since it is therefore not “baked in” , I do not have major
> reservations.
>
>  
>
> Thanks,
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Jonathan
>
>  
>
> *From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
> *Sent:* 22 April 2015 15:19
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley
> Proposed Inserts
>
>  
>
> Hi,
>
> A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed.
>
> avri
>
> On 21 Apr 2015 23:O04, "Client Committee List for CWG"
> <cwg-client at icann.org <mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> >  
> >
> > Following up on today’s call, below is proposed language for III. A
> and Annex L.
> >
>
> > 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)
>
>
> An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation
> to initiate a  Cross Community Working Group to make specific
> recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR.  These could
> include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA Functions
> Operator.  This would would be according toa cross community working
> group chartered by the Board and its recommendation would be submitted
> to the ICANN Board for consideration. The cross community process
> would include the collection of community input and intermediate
> comment periods on the work, 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.
>
>
> (1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review
> recommendation for a separation  process should be chartered by the
> Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be
> submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for
> their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether the
> Separation process CWG recommendation for separation should be
> submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> 	
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150422/1ef61e0d/attachment-0001.html>