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

[Seun Ojedeji]

I agree with Greg on this one. The cwg proposal at the moment does not
contain specific details like exact composition of PTI board, content of
the bylaw et all.

The numbers community are actually doing something similar, by creating the
SLA content, review committee charter et all. I would also say the IETF are
doing same based on the attempt to update the agreement in recognition of
the IANAplan proposal.

Whether the cwg charter specifically allow/prohibits working on
implementation is another thing. However I don't see indicating those
details in our proposal as implementation but actual part of the proposal.
Implementation to me would be after NTIA has signed off and the direction
given by content of the proposal comes to action.

It will be good to determine if cwg would still be required by then.
Personally I don't think it should, however I think it may make sense that
ICG remain during that period.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 1 Jul 2015 21:46, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> 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>
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/fa9bdc2f/attachment-0001.html>