[CWG-Stewardship] RFP 3 Sub-Group (AKA RFP 3b) - CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Jan 9 06:18:21 UTC 2015

At 08/01/2015 06:46 PM, Allan MacGillivray wrote:

>Chris – thanks for volunteering.  We all know 
>that time is very tight so I want to outline how 
>I think we could best optimize our time and energy.
>As you know there are three main components to 
>the current CWG proposal for the IANA functions: 
>Contract Co; CSC and the MRT, setting the IAP 
>aside, at least for the moment.  I propose that 
>we focus on a variant of the CWG option which 
>does not have, at least immediately, a ‘Contract 
>Co’, but rather relies on some set of ‘triggers’ 
>to create the separation of the IANA function 
>from ICANN.  My hope is that we can develop a 
>single proposal for discussion purposes and in 
>this fashion, catch up to the work that has 
>already been done on the full CWG 
>proposal.  With such a focus on ‘no Contract Co’ 
>we may also be able to set aside, again, at 
>least for the moment, the CSC and the MRT as I 
>believe there is a high degree of consensus that 
>the functions that these two entities would 
>perform are needed, that is operational 
>oversight and periodic review respectively.

The ALAC proposal kept the CSC and MRT to a large 
extent similar to what they were in the CWG 
proposal, largely to diffuse criticism that we 
had not provided sufficient detail. In fact, in 
an internal-to-ICANN solution, these dobies will 
likely be MUCH easier to bring into being and the 
"MRT" has far less to do in a steady state 
operation. So our work will not likely have the 
volume of the CWG proposal, nor will it need it.


>This may seem to be a daunting task, but I would 
>remind you that the core of the CWG proposal ran 
>to only just 7 pages in the December 1 
>proposal.  I think that together we can put 
>something credible together in a reasonable amount of time.
>It would be very helpful if the communities and 
>organizations who had significant concerns with 
>Contract Co and who also sought the development 
>of such a proposal could actively participate as 
>I fear it would lack credibility without 
>them.  I am speaking in particular of auDA, 
>SIDN, Google and ALAC.  If I have missed 
>centring anyone out, you are still welcome to volunteer!
>From: Christopher Wilkinson [mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu]
>Sent: January-08-15 5:03 PM
>To: Jonathan Robinson; Allan MacGillivray
>Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RFP 3 Sub-Group 
>Importance: High
>Good evening: In the light of my pervious 
>comments, I would be prepared to volunteer for this function.
>On 08 Jan 2015, at 17:42, Jonathan Robinson 
><<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>jrobinson at afilias.info> wrote:
>Please note this urgent call for volunteers for a sub-group of RFP3.
>The sub-group is  required to work together to 
>further develop a variant proposal for the CWG 
>which takes account of proposals and comments 
>received by the CWG, particularly as they relate 
>to a so-called “internal to ICANN” option or 
>variant to the original draft proposal of the CWG.
>Allan Mc Gillivray has offered to assist with 
>co-ordination of the group and it will need a 
>committed team to work with Allan in short order 
>to make the requisite progress.
>CWG Co-chair
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150109/835b48b3/attachment.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list