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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

On 22-Apr-15 14:26, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>  
>

For me it was the simplicity of sequence:

- IFR make recommendation for a separation review team
- Board after community comment agrees
  - accountability escalation if necessary
- Board charters the CWG to do that review and come back with the
answer. the entire community works together.

I had greater problem with sequence

- IFR make recommendation for a separation review team
- Board after community comment (or haveing it arm metaphorically
twisted) agrees
   - accountability escalation if necessary
- Board asks SOAC to form a CWG. at which point I had hard questions to
answer:
   - do they all decide in their own time and according to their own
inclination if and how to do this
  - do they decide on whether they even want to explore the question the
IFR recommended.
  - what about the SOAC that isn't convinced, can they black ball the
process by refusing to take part?
  - do all the SOAC have to be involved?  Just gNSO & ccNSO?
  - if they don't get around to it, what happens? Can it be pocket vetoed?
 - ...

So I recommended the easier more direct path, especially since this
would be a follow on to a recommendation made by one of the AOC like
review processes.   

Was waiting for it to be challenged, and you have.

avri

> 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/>
>
>  
>



---
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/20150422/562999dc/attachment.html>