[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Tue Dec 23 02:49:14 UTC 2014

Hi James, 
I understand that there is a tight timeline, but the person seeking the
information should submit the request, not staff.
--Grace

From:  James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
Date:  Monday, December 22, 2014 4:08 AM
To:  Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>, "Gomes, Chuck"
<cgomes at verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, Guru
Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>, 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 Grace,

Given the tight timelines involved here could a member of staff
manage/expedite a response on behalf of the chairs/CWG?

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 5:51 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Alan Greenberg; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Dear all, 

For a more fulsome response to your questions on obtaining the Contingency
Plan, please submit a request through ICANN¹s Documentary Information
Disclosure Policy, available at
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en.

From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
Date: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:55 AM
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, Grace Abuhamad
<grace.abuhamad at icann.org>, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>, Avri Doria
<avri at acm.org>
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

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>
Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM
To: Avri Doria <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> 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/20141223/67715a9f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5097 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141223/67715a9f/smime-0001.p7s>