[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director

[Gomes, Chuck]

If we consider the recommendations of the GNSO Policy & Implementation WG, it is good to have some continuity from the policy development WG during the implementation phase.  That doesn’t mean that the full WG needs to continue but it probably would be good to plan for that.  It could be done several ways such as ensuring that the chairs would make themselves available as resources during implementation or possibly by forming a small representative group of volunteers along with the chairs and staff who would monitor implementation to ensure that implementation is consistent with the policy recommendations.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 5:12 PM
To: Greg Shatan
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director


I agree with Greg on this one. The cwg proposal at the moment does not contain specific details like exact composition of PTI board, content of the bylaw et all.

The numbers community are actually doing something similar, by creating the SLA content, review committee charter et all. I would also say the IETF are doing same based on the attempt to update the agreement in recognition of the IANAplan proposal.

Whether the cwg charter specifically allow/prohibits working on implementation is another thing. However I don't see indicating those details in our proposal as implementation but actual part of the proposal. Implementation to me would be after NTIA has signed off and the direction given by content of the proposal comes to action.

It will be good to determine if cwg would still be required by then. Personally I don't think it should, however I think it may make sense that ICG remain during that period.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 1 Jul 2015 21:46, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
Andrew,

As I mentioned, these could be handled by an Implementation Review Team working in conjunction with staff, which is the current GNSO approach to dealing with post-WG issues.  Furthermore, we have clearly heard the message that this proposal is not going to succeed in getting the NTIA and Congressional approvals it needs if implementation is not factored in in some fashion.  If we act like implementation is "not our problem," because it's not within the four corners of our charter, we are creating a problem, not solving one.

In any event, we have discussed the need for the CWG to remain in place not only to interact with the ICG, but to be available to respond to inquiries from the NTIA and Congress.  If that's not contemplated in the Charter, we should address that.  It's highly unusual for an ICANN WG to have a proposal that requires external approvals, so if this is not contemplated in the Charter, it's because the current situation was not foreseen.

If you think our work is done, other than answering questions, and that the implementation should be left to "other people," that's fine.  Others have proposed extending the CWG, or believe that our mandate is broad enough to cover further activity without an extension or charter revision.

But between the CWG, the ICG and ICANN, there needs to be some understanding of who those other people are, and how they well turn our blueprints into a structure that actually exists.

If we wipe our hands and walk away, because the proposal is now in the ICG's hands, we might as well never have started in the first place.

Greg

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 03:48:59PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
> that is the case, we have not discussed whether the CWG/IRT will provide
> "terms of reference" for those bylaws, whether CWG/IRT and outside counsel
> will review drafts of these articles and bylaws, etc.

Is that within the charter?  I'm not sure.  My reading of the charter
is that the goal was to produce a proposal.  It has been produced,
because it's shipped.  That's the only top-line deliverable, in my
reading.

There are two further items, which involve interaction with the ICG.

I don't see anything in the charter about proposals for the
implementation and so on.  I could easily be mistaken, however.

This is the charter I was reading:

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Charter

Best regards,

A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
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/20150701/830d1d31/attachment.html>