<html>
<body>
Donna et al, Thanks for this.<br><br>
With regard to the references to the ALAC proposal, the ALAC is not
particularly wedded to many of the details in our proposal. To
quote:<br><br>
In the view of the ALAC, a suitable transition proposal will include the
following:<br>
- IANA responsibility awarded to ICANN;<br>
- New Board accountability to ensure that multistakeholder community can
initiate action if dissatisfied with IANA performance;<br>
- Independent Appeal process to address perceived errors.<br>
- Doomsday capability to reassign responsibility if all else
fails.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<br><br>
At 08/01/2015 09:15 PM, Donna Austin wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">All<br>
<br>
In the interests of sharing, a group of RySG members conducted our own
analysis of the comments submitted on the CWG Transition Proposal.
Provided below are our conclusions and recommendations for next steps.
Also attached is a document we prepared containing key excerpts of
comments as they relate to various aspects of the proposal.<br>
<br>
Please accept this information in the spirit that it is offered—not as
authoritative but as thhe result of an analysis developed by the RySG for
our own purposes. <br>
<br>
We (Chuck, Stephanie, Sarah and myself) will be happy to answer any
questions.<br>
<b> <br>
RySG IANA CWG Team Conclusions regarding ongoing work of the IANA
CWG<br>
</b> <br>
The RySG believes that the following statements have very strong support
in the community and hence can be used to guide future decisions by the
CWG:<br><br>
A. The current service of the IANA
functions operator is satisfactory and ICANN should initially continue as
the operator when the transition occurs.<br><br>
B. The IANA CWG proposal as described in
the request for public comments is too complex and does not contain
enough detail.<br>
Of the four elements of the proposed IANA CWG proposal, there appears to
be reasonable support for the CSC, MRT and IAP in some form, although not
necessarily as described in the CWG proposal.<br>
The RySG believes that the following statements need further
investigation and/or indicate areas where additional work is
warranted:<br><br>
i. The
overall structure of the CWG proposal.<br><br>
ii.
Contract Co.<br><br>
iii.
Internal to ICANN option<br>
<b>RySG IANA CWG Team Recommendations regarding Next Steps<br>
</b><br>
1. Suggestions made by commenters
should be evaluated based on the following criteria to identify which
ones should be excluded, which ones should definitely be considered
further and which ones need further investigation:<br><br>
a. CWG principles<br><br>
b. Would they contribute toward a simpler
proposal?<br><br>
c. Results of the two surveys.<br>
<br><br>
2. All alternatives to the CWG
proposal should be examined in detail, not just the one proposed by the
ALAC, to identify what alternatives or elements of the alternatives
should be investigated further.<br><br>
3. An extension of the targeted time
frame of at least 60 days should be requested from the ICG to allow for
continued work and an additional public comment period after reasonable
consensus is reached on a proposal for submission to the chartering SOs
and ACs.<br>
<br>
4. The work of the IANA CWG and
Accountability CCWG are properly dependent. The IANA CWG should have the
opportunity to revisit the CWG Proposal, ALAC alternative, and other
options once the outputs of Workstream 1 of the Accountability CCWG are
provided and consider the implications for accountability as it relates
to the performance of the IANA Functions. <br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Donna</blockquote></body>
</html>