[CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process

Fri May 15 02:02:33 UTC 2015

Hi, Alan.

In your scenario: IFO for names moves to another entity with ICANN
retaining "stewardship".

Numbers and Protocol Parameters communities have options to consider (i.e.,
follow or don't follow).

If they do not follow (and assuming they do not stay with ICANN either),
ICANN's mission fundamentally changes and ICANN would become ICAN.

Is this correct as a possible outcome of this separation?

Rinalia
On May 15, 2015 8:21 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150515/a70a2baa/attachment.html>