[CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore

[Matthew Shears]

Agree with Avri and Elise.

On 2/2/2015 10:02 AM, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:
>
> 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:
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150202/70b8a3b8/attachment.html>