[client com] Revised List of Open Items (or "Punch List")

Wed May 6 21:17:45 UTC 2015

I am trying to emerge from INTA....

On Wednesday, May 6, 2015, Client Committee List for CWG <
cwg-client at icann.org> wrote:

> Sharon,
>
>
>
> Thank-you.
>
>
>
> Lise is travelling and we have been in touch. I am aware that Greg is at
> INTA and I haven’t conferred with Martin
>
>
>
> Thoughts in-line below.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Client Committee List for CWG [mailto:cwg-client at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client at icann.org');>]
> *Sent:* 05 May 2015 21:51
> *To:* cwg-client at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client at icann.org');>
> *Subject:* Re: [client com] Revised List of Open Items (or "Punch List")
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> We had a few follow-up items from our call today that we would appreciate
> your input on:
>
>
>
> 1.  As noted in the chat, let us know if you think it would be helpful to
> have Sidley on some of the design team calls to help answer any of the
> legal or structural questions real time.
>
>
> OK. We will bear that in mind and let’s highlight with the CWG again
> tomorrow
>
>
>
> 2.  Does CWG need our help in drafting the update to Section III of the
> proposal or will staff be doing that?  We can certainly provide the
> rationale (Jonathan’s 3 bullets with Chuck’s addition).  The background of
> how CWG arrived at its proposal would probably be better written by staff
> or CWG members who have been involved throughout the process, although we
> are happy to help.
>
> Staff will lead. Your (May 3rd) memo is very helpful as is any
> contribution you make on review and development of the final proposal.
>
>
>
> 3.  In working through the PTI Board open items, would you like us to
> circulate a list of potential “stress tests” or scenario planning for the
> PTI Board for the CWG to consider as it looks at the issue of an insider
> vs. an outsider PTI board?  This might help frame the further discussion.
>
>
>
> Finally, a couple of logistical points:
>
>
>
> 1.  We are revising the “punch list” and will recirculate.  We have been
> circulating memos and other documents to the Client Committee.  Can you
> confirm this is the right list?
>
> This list is the correct list but where there are documents of information
> / substance (e.g. updated memo) there is no harm in copying them to the CWG
> list at the same time.
>
>
>
> 2.  Is there a CWG call on Thursday that you would like us to join other
> than the regular weekly client committee call at 14:00 UTC?
>
>
>
> I know it is very early but we plan to review some key items on the punch
> list so I suspect it will be helpful to have one of you at least (You?) on
> the call. 11h00 UTC / 04h00 PST.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sharon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *SHARON* *FLANAGAN*
> Partner
>
> *Sidley Austin LLP*
> +1.415.772.1271
> sflanagan at sidley.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan at sidley.com');>
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-client-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client-bounces at icann.org');> [
> mailto:cwg-client-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client-bounces at icann.org');>] *On
> Behalf Of *Client Committee List for CWG
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 05, 2015 9:57 AM
> *To:* cwg-client at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client at icann.org');>
> *Subject:* Re: [client com] Revised List of Open Items (or "Punch List")
>
>
>
> Thank-you Sharon,
>
>
>
> That’s very helpful and timely.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Client Committee List for CWG [mailto:cwg-client at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client at icann.org');>]
> *Sent:* 05 May 2015 16:42
> *To:* 'cwg-client at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client at icann.org');>'
> *Subject:* Re: [client com] Revised List of Open Items (or "Punch List")
>
>
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> In terms of the ordering of the items on the list, we had been asked to
> compile the list in the order the items appeared in the draft proposal. We
> took that as a general approach, although we did group some items so it is
> not literally ordered page by page of the proposal. We're happy to re-order
> or discuss in any order that makes most sense to the group.
>
> In terms of priority items, we flagged those items where we felt the most
> discussion and work still needed to be done (rather than details relating
> to more developed concepts).
>
> For example, matters concerning the PTI Board seem to have elicited a fair
> amount of emails and discussion. If the board is a board of ICANN employees
> it will be easy to implement. If, however, an outside board is required,
> that would involve a great deal of further work and discussion as that
> creates a new level of accountability and issues similar to what CCWG has
> been discussing.
>
> In regards to the separation mechanism, there is not a lot of detail on
> that aspect of the proposal, and to the extent it involves completely new
> mechanisms (e.g., something beyond the IFR as a trigger), then that will
> require additional work and discussion.
>
> We hope that's helpful. Let us know if you have further questions and we
> look forward to speaking with you all shortly.
>
> Best regards,
> Sharon
>
>
> Sharon R. Flanagan
> Sidley Austin LLP
> SF tel: 415-772-1271
> PA tel: 650-565-7008
> Email: sflanagan at sidley.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan at sidley.com');>
>
>
>
> *From*: Client Committee List for CWG [mailto:cwg-client at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client at icann.org');>]
> *Sent*: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 08:01 AM
> *To*: cwg-client at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client at icann.org');> <
> cwg-client at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client at icann.org');>>
> *Subject*: Re: [client com] Revised List of Open Items (or "Punch List")
>
>
> Dear Sharon & Colleagues,
>
>
>
> On further review a couple of minor questions emerged:
>
>
>
> 1.       Is there any reason for the sequence / order of the document?
> Comments are favourable on it being comprehensive but I have a preference
> for working through these points in a different order to how they are
> presented.
>
> 2.       1, 4-5 & 27-32 are presented as your view of priority items as
> we asked you to do. Related to 1 above, it would be helpful to have a brief
> rationale as to why these are the priority items? E.g. because answering
> these is a necessary condition for dealing with the others (which is not
> obviously the case to me).
>
>
>
> Thank-you in advance.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Client Committee List for CWG [mailto:cwg-client at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client at icann.org');>]
> *Sent:* 01 May 2015 23:32
> *To:* Client Committee
> *Subject:* [client com] Revised List of Open Items (or "Punch List")
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Attached is a revised list of open items (or “punch list”) for the CWG.
> This highlights the priority items from a timing standpoint and also
> identifies the relevant design team.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sharon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20150506/dc1b0b3c/attachment-0001.html>