<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6iey4DsS9bx9cqb_nE9JLAFiKvsWJNu7f9T4yJO39Nm+g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr"><span>
On 21 Apr 2015 23:</span>O<span>04, "Client Committee List for
CWG" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-client@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-client@icann.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> Dear All,<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Following up on today’s call, below is proposed language
for III. A and Annex L.<br>
></span><br>
</p>
<div>
<div>
> Annex L:<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Triggers for the Separation Mechanism<br>
><br>
> An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a
recommendation to initiate a separation of the IANA Functions
Operator. This recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN
Board for consideration, with ultimate input by the
multistakeholder community through the CCWG Accountability
mechanisms under consideration.(1) <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation
to initiate a Cross Community Working Group to make specific
recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR. These
could include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA
Functions Operator. This would would be according toa cross
community working group chartered by the Board and its
recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for
consideration. The cross community process would include the
collection of community input and intermediate comment periods on
the work, with ultimate input by the multistakeholder community
through the CCWG Accountability mechanisms under consideration.(1) <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6iey4DsS9bx9cqb_nE9JLAFiKvsWJNu7f9T4yJO39Nm+g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
>> (1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA
Function Review recommendation for separation should first be
submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory
Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN
Board, or whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for
separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by
the IANA Function Review Team.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review
recommendation for a separation process should be chartered by the
Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be
submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees
for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether
the Separation process CWG recommendation for separation should be
submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review
Team.<br>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="http://www.avast.com/">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br><a href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>