[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

[Alan Greenberg]

I believe that any such document must be shared 
with the CWG, if only with the Co-Chairs or some 
specific sub-set of the CWG who of course must 
sign an appropriate confidentiality document and 
perhaps get clearance for what they share (with 
an appeal process in the case of a disagreement).

Alan

At 17/12/2014 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:


>Hi all,
>
>We looked into this and noted that the 
>Continuity & Contingency Plan is confidential and cannot be distributed.
>
>Notes, transcripts, and recordings for RFP4 call 
>are available here: 
><https://community.icann.org/x/MYcQAw>https://community.icann.org/x/MYcQAw
>
>Best,
>Grace
>
>From: Guru Acharya <<mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>gurcharya at gmail.com>
>Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM
>To: Avri Doria <<mailto:avri at acm.org>avri at acm.org>
>Cc: 
>"<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>cwg-stewardship at icann.org" 
><<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
>
>Hi Avri,
>
>This was an action item for the staff from the 
>call on 25th November. I believe they have 
>already put in a request for the document with 
>the IANA staff. Maybe Grace or Marika can update us on the request.
>
>"ACTION staff : Ask IANA staff to share details 
>on 7.3 that might be available for the public and/or online"
>On 17 Dec 2014 17:29, "Avri Doria" <<mailto:avri at acm.org>avri at acm.org> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Is that 'transition to a "successor  contractor" plan' available to the CWG?
>
>avri
>
>On 17-Dec-14 05:26, Matthew Shears wrote:
>>Alan
>>
>>Section C.7 in the current contract addresses 
>>issues of continuity of operations - 
>>particularly C.7.3, according to which ICANN 
>>should have a transition to a "successor
>>contractor" plan in place at the moment
>>
>>Matthew
>>
>>On 12/17/2014 3:38 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>>As someone whose ICANN 'job" is 
>>>supporting/defending the needs of Internet 
>>>users, I will point out that security and 
>>>stability of the IANA functions is of 
>>>paramount importance for the ALAC as well.
>>>
>>>I look forward to the seeing how that can be 
>>>assured in a potentially disruptive switch of 
>>>the IANA operator where it may be that there 
>>>is no continuity of either staff or systems.
>>>
>>>Alan
>>>
>>>At 15/12/2014 03:16 PM, Donna Austin wrote:
>>>
>>>>All
>>>>
>>>>I largely agree with Christopher. I think we 
>>>>are creating complexity where it does not 
>>>>necessarily need to be, but as we are here I 
>>>>want to reiterate a few comments I made on 
>>>>the RFP 3 call earlier today, and these 
>>>>comments come from a gTLD registry operator perspective:
>>>>
>>>>·         Operational stability and 
>>>>reliability of the IANA service is imperative 
>>>>to the business operations of registry 
>>>>operators and as such this should be a 
>>>>critical consideration in any discussions.
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141218/0cedc618/attachment.html>