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

Wed Apr 22 19:00:09 UTC 2015

I agree that the footnote idea seems reasonable and also that the sue of
Separation Mechanism is not ideal terminology.

Jonathan

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
Sent: 22 April 2015 19:00
To: avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed
Inserts

Avri's footnote suggestion seems okay to me.

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 1:25 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed
Inserts

Hi,

perhaps we need a footnote asking this question.

for example:

There is an open question for comment on whether the recommendation of the
IFR for the initiation of Separation discussion should be carried out by the
IFR itself or should be assigned to a CWG as indicated in this section.

Note: all of this conversation on it has convinced me, have not checked with
other till now, that Section L and the reference to it in the main doc
should be Separation review not mechanism. though that does not seem right
either becasue it would do more than review, though it might not go as far
as RFP.  IFR Follow-up Team?  I don't know.

avri

On 22-Apr-15 12:04, Jonathan Robinson wrote:

Avri,

Yes, I suppose that is the implication i.e. if the additional work is not
done by the CWG then it would need to be sufficiently specified and scoped
in the recommendations of the IFR group.

Thanks,

Jonathan

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] 
Sent: 22 April 2015 16:13
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed
Inserts

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> 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.

  _____  

 <http://www.avast.com/> Avast logo

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

  _____  

 <http://www.avast.com/> Avast logo

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

  _____  

 <http://www.avast.com/> Avast logo

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/20150422/61ddda8e/attachment-0001.html>