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

[Gomes, Chuck]

The process you describe Avri seems right.  I just think the community should charter the CCWG, not the Board.

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 3:13 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts

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> [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<mailto: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/>




________________________________
[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/a3c2b855/attachment.html>