[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

[Gomes, Chuck]

At a minimum, we should ask what needs to be done to allow some review of it.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:08 AM
To: Grace Abuhamad; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

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

Best,
Grace

From: Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM
To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>
Cc: " cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" < cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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" <avri at acm.org<mailto: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
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20141218/04186883/attachment.html>