[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IFRT Recommendations for Contract, SOW or CSC Charter Amendments

[Seun Ojedeji]

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 12 Apr 2016 15:50, "Maarten Simon" <maarten.simon at sidn.nl> wrote:
>
>. I further wonder if it wouldn’t be helpful to have a board liaison on
the IFRT ?
>
SO: +1 and I thought that was contemplated during the discussion (I think
our proposal has such option as well). Nevertheless, while cautious about
changing our proposal, I think a board liaison will be a good addition to
IFRT.

Cheers!

> From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Lindeberg, Elise"
<elise.lindeberg at nkom.no>
> Date: Tuesday 12 April 2016 at 15:49
> To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, Chuck Gomes <
cgomes at verisign.com>
> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IFRT Recommendations for
Contract, SOW or CSC Charter Amendments
>
> I agree with - if ICANN is a part of the contract anyway, let’s put a
consultation right in predictable frame.
>
>
>
> Elise
>
>
>
> Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] På vegne av Greg Shatan
> Sendt: 12. april 2016 15:43
> Til: Gomes, Chuck
> Kopi: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IFRT Recommendations for
Contract, SOW or CSC Charter Amendments
>
>
>
> If ICANN is a direct party to the contract, a consultation right seems
appropriate.  I expect they would find a way to make their concerns known
with or without a formal consultation right, so it's probably better to
define how that will happen.  This can avoid unfortunately timed ad hoc
interventions.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> I have two thoughts on this:
>
> ·         Because PTI will be an affiliate of ICANN, would the
consultation with PTI suffice?
>
> ·         ICANN could comment during the public comment period.
>
>
>
> That said, I don’t initially see any problems with a consultation with
ICANN except that it might add more time to the process.  Therefore, if it
happens, I think it should happen in parallel with one of the other steps.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> From:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:40 AM
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IFRT Recommendations for
Contract, SOW or CSC Charter Amendments
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Please review below and provide any relevant input as soon as possible.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com]
> Sent: 12 April 2016 02:33
> To: Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org>
> Subject: [client com] IFRT Recommendations for Contract, SOW or CSC
Charter Amendments
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> There is an open question in the ICANN draft bylaws relating to
IFRT-recommended amendments to the IANA Naming Function Contract, SOW and
the CSC Charter (Section 18.6(a)(i)).  ICANN had requested a consultation
right on amendments to the Contract and SOW since it is a party to the
Contract.  On the CWG call, there was a comment on whether the consultation
right for the ICANN board was appropriate.   The CWG proposal does not
contemplate an ICANN consultation right.
>
>
>
> Paragraph 272 of the CWG proposal states:
>
>
>
> 272               The review could identify recommended amendments to the
IANA SOW to address any performance deficiencies, or to the CSC charter to
address any issues or deficiencies. The process of developing and approving
amendments will take place through a defined process that includes, at
minimum, the following steps, in advance of an amendment to either document
being proposed:
>
> ›        Consultation with the IANA Functions Operator;
>
> ›        Consultation with the CSC;
>
> ›        Public input session for ccTLD and gTLD operators; and
>
> ›        Public comment period.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sharon
>
>
>
> SHARON R. FLANAGAN
>
>
> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
> 555 California Street
> Suite 2000
> San Francisco, CA 94104
> +1 415 772 1271
> sflanagan at sidley.com
> www.sidley.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
****************************************************************************************************
> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
privileged or confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
attachments and notify us
> 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/20160412/118526e8/attachment.html>