<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.im
{mso-style-name:im;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">To which I would also add that the text in Escalation Mechanisms you comment on (GS64) is not intended to say that the ccNSO and/or GNSO act as bodies to solve
problems of performance (although I think due diligence on their behalf would be to discuss the issues with PTI and ICANN Boards) – the further action they
<i>might</i> take is to launch a special IFR. They also might have agreed further action when they did due diligence or they might think that the call lacked consensus or was more to do with personalities or even that the call was outside the CSC’s mandate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Martin Boyle
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 08 June 2015 14:14<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Greg Shatan'; James Gannon<br>
<b>Cc:</b> avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Greg,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Under the IFR section of the table in Annex S you delete the wording, “[A special review may also be initiated by the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation
(ccNSO) or Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) in the event that the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) or Top-Level Domains (TLDs) raise concerns sufficient to trigger such review.]” and replace it with “</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">[A
special review may also be initiated by the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) in the event that a deficiency identified by the CSC is not remediated after all required escalations, subject to approval by the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO)
and the Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) pursuant to a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO Council and the GNSO Council.]</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I’m not sure that that was what we agreed – we argued (and I thought it was accepted) that the CSC
<i>shouldn’t</i> initiate a review, but that the decision was to be made by the ccNSO and the GNSO. In other words the CSC flags the issue, but it is the cc & GNSO that makes the decision to initiate the special review. I certainly prefer the original text
in that it is clear that initiating the review is a decision belonging to the cc and (or?) the GNSO, which is reasonable given the serious nature of the review process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I have one suggestion, though – the original text calls for ccNSO
<b>or</b> GNSO. Reading one of Chucks comments he notes that one of the two might have a strong reason to call for a review whereas the other is not involved. I thought that this was an important point. For the original wording could we amend it to read,
“A special review may also be initiated by the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) or Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO)
<b>subject to no opposition from the other NSO</b> in the event that…”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 07 June 2015 23:31<br>
<b>To:</b> James Gannon<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>; <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">
cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">I think we are complicating things with the timing of reviews. It will be more predictable to have the periodic reviews stay on schedule, regardless of a SIFR. I would suggest that the
next periodic IFR (PIFR?) after a SIFR should specifically examine whether the remediation that came out of the SIFR continued to work in a satisfactory manner.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">The only exception would be if a SIFR resulting in SCWG and ultimately in a new IFO (replacing PTI). In this case, the new IFO should be subject to a PIFR two years after commencing operations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Greg<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 12:45 PM, James Gannon <<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net" target="_blank">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would support the SCWG making a recommendation on it as the landscape may change post an SCWG depending on the outcome. The SCWG would be in the best position to make an informed fact based decision at that time rather than us making
it based on hypotheticals now.<br>
<span style="color:#888888"><br>
<span class="hoenzb">-James</span><br>
</span><br>
<span class="im">-----Original Message-----</span><br>
<span class="im">From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:29 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC<br>
<br>
Hi<br>
<br>
Sorry for the confusion.<br>
<br>
I was asking whether we consider resetting the IFR timer for post SCWG.<br>
<br>
We had the conversation about post SIFR and lots of arguments were made both ways, with neither prevailing; so I left that issue alone.<br>
<br>
The idea about doing it post SCWG, is that even if the SCWG were to result in no-change, whatever would have been going on at the time, would have been serious enough for the SCWG to have been triggered. It therefore seems that this would be a good time to
rest the clock back to time 0 (i.e. this transition).<br>
<br>
On the other hand, perhaps this decision could be left to the SCWG to recommend, just as a SIFR or IFR could recommend a changed timing.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
On 07-Jun-15 11:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
> Avri,<br>
><br>
> Regarding the clock for periodic IFRs related to SIFRs, let me make sure I understand what you are suggesting. Am I correct that you are suggesting that after an SIFR the entire clock would be reset so that the next periodic IFR would occur two years later
and then the (no more than) 5 year periodic review cycle would kick in again? If so, then the only concern I have is a situation illustration by this possible scenario:<br>
> - The initial 2-year periodic review happens.<br>
> - A SIFR occurs 4 years after the initial 2-year periodic review.<br>
> - A new 2-year periodic review happens 2 years after the SIFR.<br>
> In this case there would be six years or more between periodic reviews, which would violate our intent that periodic reviews occur no less frequently than five years.<br>
><br>
> Because periodic review cover items different than in SIFRs, I think we should fix this, assuming I am understanding your recommendation correctly, and I think it should be easily fixable with some adjustments to wording. Would a qualifier, like the following
work: "In case an SIFR occurs close to the end of a 5-year period after the last periodic review, the periodic review should still occur and a 2-year periodic review should occur after the 5-year periodic review."<br>
><br>
> I am not sure my qualifying language is the best but I at least wanted to try to suggest something.<br>
><br>
> Hope this makes sense but if it doesn't please let me know.<br>
><br>
> Chuck<br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>
> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 12:07 PM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on<br>
> Sunday at 23:59 UTC<br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> On a partial reread, I have the following comments.<br>
> I do agree with Grace's comment that we are almost there.<br>
><br>
> On 05-Jun-15 00:07, Grace Abuhamad wrote:<br>
>> Dear all,<br>
>><br>
>> Attached is the updated proposal. This version includes the edits<br>
>> listed below. *Your comments are requested and welcome until Sunday<br>
>> 23:59 UTC.* If you don’t have time to read the whole proposal, I’ve<br>
>> highlighted specific areas in the document that require feedback.<br>
>> * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about status of<br>
>> footnote<br>
>><br>
> - i do not understand footnote 51 in the context of the current report. It is a vestige of a time before we discussed the IFR in detail. I think it should be removed.<br>
><br>
>> * Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri perhaps?)<br>
>><br>
> seems fine to me.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --- Does Annex H need to change based on changes made in para 133<br>
><br>
> --- An issue we discussed but not sure we closed on.<br>
><br>
> IFR Clock reset after any SCWG. (and understanding that we could not<br>
> come to consensus of changing the periodicity after an SIFR)<br>
><br>
> I think we need to reset the clock after any SCWG, no matter what<br>
> outcome it may select. If something was important enough to warrant<br>
> an SCWG, its outcome needs to be reviewed 2 years later - even in case<br>
> of a decision of no change)<br>
><br>
> this would require changing: 299 top row 2nd col.<br>
><br>
>> Initially, two years, then moving to every five years<br>
>><br>
> to<br>
><br>
> Initially and after an SCWG, two years, then moving to an interval of<br>
> no more than five years<br>
><br>
> (the second bit for consistency with other word in the doc)<br>
><br>
> It might also require insertion of something like the following after<br>
> 126 & 385<br>
><br>
> # After the completion of a SCWG process, the IFR periodic clock will be reset to its initial state of first IFR after 2 years followed by a period of no more that five years for subsequent IFR.<br>
><br>
> thanks<br>
><br>
> avri<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ---<br>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
> <a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>