[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

[Carlton Samuels]

This answer, IMHO, is a timely reminder of what is.

I am ever bemused that reasonable men and women would continue to conflate,
even confuse, two different concepts: ICANN, the corporation, is a
different animal from ICANN, the multi-stakeholder organisation. The one
has a different set of responsibilities from the other.

It was a struggle for the At-Large to understand in conceptualising
expected behaviour of an At-Large selected director.  Because we struggle
with understanding the socialisation of an American corporation.  And the
fealty of the directors of the Board of such an animal.

We may need ole Foghorn Leghorn's help here.  But it is time enough to
learn this.

-Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
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>
> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM
> To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> Cc: "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" <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
>> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/cbde10c7/attachment.html>