[CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process

[Alan Greenberg]

My understanding is that "separation" changes who the IANA Function Operator is and possibly the specifics of how it is connected to ICANN. But ICANN remains the steward of the function.
-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On May 14, 2015 7:35:12 PM EDT, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com> wrote:
>Avri:
>
>The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a Contract
>CO.
>Is this correct?
>
>-ed
>
>On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential
>and/or
>subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
>addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not
>use,
>disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this
>email by
>mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20150514/3ae1b02d/attachment-0001.html>