<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
On 12 Apr 2016 7:05 p.m., "Mueller, Milton L" <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> ICANN is only a direct party for numbers and protocols, and that could change over time as either could decide to contract directly with PTI after it is more well-established.<br>
><br>
SO: I don't think the above makes a difference as it's out of scope here. The numbers/protocol can make their decisions accordingly.</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
In the case of names, however, ICANN, under the guidance of the ICANN community is the entity which contracts with PTI, which is why it makes little sense for ICANN corporate to have a “consultation right” regarding remedies to the performance of PTI<br>
><br>
SO: IMO I think this is significantly out of line. I am not a lawyer but it seem to Mr to be in order that ICANN being a party to the contract to have "consultation rights". As you rightly said, the community provides guidance and somewhat oversight on ICANN's activity as it engages with PTI. One may then say it will be irresponsible of ICANN not to consulate with PTI when required to resolve issue but always wait on the community to raise issues/concerns.</p>
<p dir="ltr">That said, if it is not clear in the bylaw that any such consultation be transparently done and carry the community along (as much as required) then perhaps such clarification should be made.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">> <br>
><br>
> 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 Greg Shatan<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:39 AM<br>
> To: Lindeberg, Elise <<a href="mailto:elise.lindeberg@nkom.no">elise.lindeberg@nkom.no</a>><br>
> Cc: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IFRT Recommendations for Contract, SOW or CSC Charter Amendments<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Elise -- <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> You can speak my name (and it's not "Voldemort").<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Greg 😈<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Lindeberg, Elise <<a href="mailto:elise.lindeberg@nkom.no">elise.lindeberg@nkom.no</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I agree with - if ICANN is a part of the contract anyway, let’s put a consultation right in predictable frame.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Elise<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Fra: <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>] På vegne av Greg Shatan<br>
>> Sendt: 12. april 2016 15:43<br>
>> Til: Gomes, Chuck<br>
>> Kopi: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IFRT Recommendations for Contract, SOW or CSC Charter Amendments<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Greg <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Gomes, Chuck <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I have two thoughts on this:<br>
>><br>
>> · Because PTI will be an affiliate of ICANN, would the consultation with PTI suffice?<br>
>><br>
>> · ICANN could comment during the public comment period.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Chuck<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> 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 Jonathan Robinson<br>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:40 AM<br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IFRT Recommendations for Contract, SOW or CSC Charter Amendments<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> All,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Please review below and provide any relevant input as soon as possible.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Thanks,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Jonathan<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:<a href="mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com">sflanagan@sidley.com</a>] <br>
>> Sent: 12 April 2016 02:33<br>
>> To: Client Committee <<a href="mailto:cwg-client@icann.org">cwg-client@icann.org</a>><br>
>> Subject: [client com] IFRT Recommendations for Contract, SOW or CSC Charter Amendments<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Dear All,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> 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. <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Paragraph 272 of the CWG proposal states:<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> 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:<br>
>><br>
>> Consultation with the IANA Functions Operator;<br>
>><br>
>> Consultation with the CSC;<br>
>><br>
>> Public input session for ccTLD and gTLD operators; and<br>
>><br>
>> Public comment period.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Best regards,<br>
>><br>
>> Sharon<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> SHARON R. FLANAGAN<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP<br>
>> 555 California Street<br>
>> Suite 2000<br>
>> San Francisco, CA 94104<br>
>> +1 415 772 1271<br>
>> <a href="mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com">sflanagan@sidley.com</a><br>
>> <a href="http://www.sidley.com">www.sidley.com</a><br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> ****************************************************************************************************<br>
>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.<br>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us<br>
>> immediately.<br>
>><br>
>> ****************************************************************************************************<br>
>><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
>><br>
>> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
><br>
</p>