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

[Gomes, Chuck]

Avri,

I don't understand why the Board would charter the CCWG.  Why wouldn't the community do that?  It seems strange to me that the Board would charter a group to investigate the possibility of ICANN losing the IANA functions.  Maybe I am missing something here.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 10:19 AM
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/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150422/f5e2c05e/attachment.html>