[CWG-Stewardship] Clause C.7.3 - Access to Continuity and Contingency Plan

[Guru Acharya]

Alan, I agree that access to this document under clause C.7.3 is extremely
essential. This document operationalises the concept of separability. And
separability is the underlying foundation of our present transition
proposal. I request the chairs of this CWG to directly request IANA staff
for this document.

While we all might agree on the potential benefits of separability
(including continued accountability of IANA), many of us disagree on the
potential costs of separability. By costs, I mean an assessment of all
complexities required for a smooth and disruption-free transition between
operators (not accounting costs per se).

This document under C.7.3 will help us understand the potential social
costs of separability. Without knowledge of these costs, this CWG can not
make an informed choice between the two alternative proposals.

ICANN has an extremely slow track record of responding to DIDP requests;
making the response redundant for the use by this CWG. I strongly urge the
chairs to intervene.

On 23 Dec 2014 07:16, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> I must say that I find this level of bureaucracy totally unreasonable.
This is not someone from outside the organization trying to get ICANN to
reveal some secret, it is a properly chartered ICANN CWG trying to
understand its task mandated by the Board.
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 22/12/2014 09:49 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
>>
>> 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 ICANN’s 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" < 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141223/c8371488/attachment-0001.html>