[CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore

[Lindeberg, Elise]

I agree with Avri on this  - the notion of separability has to be underlined as common to both models.
And, since this is a key element in the CWG discussions, principles and draft solutions , I think we should formulate a question to the community about the importance of separability, that is if an all internal solution creates enough separation and independent oversight and review.

Elise

Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] På vegne av Avri Doria
Sendt: 2. februar 2015 09:21
Til: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore

Hi,

One to the comments I would make is that the notion of separability, the ability to remove the IANA function from ICANN without necessarily separating the function from ICANN at this time, is common to both solutions as it is contained in the principles and both solutions allow for this, though in a different manner (contract co vs. so-called nuclear options).  I beleive it should get a point in the " Common points between the two models "

avri
On 02-Feb-15 07:47, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
On 02-Feb-15 00:07, Milton L Mueller wrote:
The first point you make in this report, which apparently was drafted by ICANN staff, is "Overall there was very strong support for the current IANA operator (ICANN) and that the IANA functions should not be moved from ICANN, or tendered for, at the onset of the transition." Taken out of context, this statement makes it seem as if there is little support for separability.

And yet what is says appears  true as it stands, no mater who wrote it.

I think the misapprehension some might get could be fixed by adding a clause at the begining that says While separability has been supported as a basic principle of the process, and is supported by a most of the participants, overal there is ....

I was traveling when this came out am still reading the report and will add my personal views on the report later in the day.  At this point I should emphasise that these reviews will all be personal and will not be an NCSG position - I do not think we have time to reach such a consensus even among the our smaller tracking group in the next day.  If perchance we do, I will inform the list of that condition.

avri


avri




_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150202/99da55e5/attachment.html>