[CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process

[Avri Doria]

hi,

On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Avri,
>
> Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved by the ICANN board?

That is one of the questions asked?
Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further action. 
Isn't it part of the check and balances.  And if they don't agree isn't
that why we have the various redress mechanisms?

>
> The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full separation of the IANA affiliate".  Does this mean separation of PTI from ICANN?

Yes.  one of the option in the various models we discussed was an
independent free standing PTI  depending on the circumstances, this
might an option those responsible at the time might want to consider. 
As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging the
type of decision they might need to take.

avri


>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
>
> Hi,
>
> I did an update on the file.
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing>
> and attached a pdf version to this note.
>
>   * Received some comments which I tried to include
>   * Responded to Sibley comments, I think
>   * Largely separated the process from who does it
>   * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which include:
>       o who dies it:
>           + [A cross community of the SOAC would be formed, The IFR
>             would be designated]
>       o how it is initiated: 
>           + on the recommendation of the IANA Review Function as
>             approved by [Board, SOAC, members council], or in the case
>             of Board rejection via escalation procedure.
>           + on supermajority recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO
>           + on recommendation of 1 SO and 2 ACs
>       o method of operation
>           + The Separation Review would be either a(decision to be made
>             by CWG)
>               #
>
>                 A process initiated in the IFR
>
>               #
>
>                 Function as a Cross Community Working Group and would
>                 follow established guidelines for multistakeholder cross
>                 community working groups. In this case the participants
>                 would be either (decision to be made by CWG):
>
>              1.
>
>                 Each of the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the
>                 Separation Review.
>
>              2. Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and
>                 proportions to include the broader community as this
>                 will affect the entire community.
>
>
> Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's meeting so will miss the middle hour,  but I do think this is something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near future.
>
> avri
>
>       o
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com


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