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

[Avri Doria]

+1

On 01-Jul-15 16:45, Greg Shatan wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>     _______________________________________________
>     CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>     CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus