[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director

[Greg Shatan]

Andrew,

As I mentioned, these could be handled by an Implementation Review Team
working in conjunction with staff, which is the current GNSO approach to
dealing with post-WG issues.  Furthermore, we have clearly heard the
message that this proposal is not going to succeed in getting the NTIA and
Congressional approvals it needs if implementation is not factored in in
some fashion.  If we act like implementation is "not our problem," because
it's not within the four corners of our charter, we are creating a problem,
not solving one.

In any event, we have discussed the need for the CWG to remain in place not
only to interact with the ICG, but to be available to respond to inquiries
from the NTIA and Congress.  If that's not contemplated in the Charter, we
should address that.  It's highly unusual for an ICANN WG to have a
proposal that requires external approvals, so if this is not contemplated
in the Charter, it's because the current situation was not foreseen.

If you think our work is done, other than answering questions, and that the
implementation should be left to "other people," that's fine.  Others have
proposed extending the CWG, or believe that our mandate is broad enough to
cover further activity without an extension or charter revision.

But between the CWG, the ICG and ICANN, there needs to be some
understanding of who those other people are, and how they well turn our
blueprints into a structure that actually exists.

If we wipe our hands and walk away, because the proposal is now in the
ICG's hands, we might as well never have started in the first place.

Greg

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 03:48:59PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
> > that is the case, we have not discussed whether the CWG/IRT will provide
> > "terms of reference" for those bylaws, whether CWG/IRT and outside
> counsel
> > will review drafts of these articles and bylaws, etc.
>
> Is that within the charter?  I'm not sure.  My reading of the charter
> is that the goal was to produce a proposal.  It has been produced,
> because it's shipped.  That's the only top-line deliverable, in my
> reading.
>
> There are two further items, which involve interaction with the ICG.
>
> I don't see anything in the charter about proposals for the
> implementation and so on.  I could easily be mistaken, however.
>
> This is the charter I was reading:
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Charter
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> 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/20150701/00ee953b/attachment.html>