[CWG-Stewardship] v1 Final Proposal

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Tue Jun 2 12:01:05 UTC 2015

This is a very good catch Andrew and one that I think should be fixed.  Your last paragraph sums in up very well in my opinion.


-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 7:23 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] v1 Final Proposal


I'm reading through this, and there is one thing I note repeatedly that nags at me: there continue to be parts of this that suggest the "naming functions" IANA people are transferred to PTI, and the document isn't terribly clear what happens to the other functions.

This is not completely consistent throughout the document.  For instance, Annex M seems to be imagining a wholesale transfer of IANA operations from one operator to another (but leaves out details of non-naming functions, as is appropriate for the document).

I thought the agreement was that the CWG proposal imagines moving all IANA functions to PTI.  The other communities can of course continue their agreements with ICANN, which is going to subcontract all the IANA functions to the PTI.  The other communities have been clear that they don't see a fundamental conflict here, which by implication means that they do not think there is anything preventing such a subcontract arrangement.

I think the proposal needs to be clear that it proposes to move all the IANA functions to PTI, but that it remains mute on the precise details of how that will work for all the non-naming functions.  I don't see how we can propose anything else, for if we do we are essentially proposing to break up the IANA functions across two operators.  I don't think we actually want to make that proposal, right?

Apologies for today's meeting; I have grave doubts that I'll make any of it and I will certainly miss the first hour.

Best regards,


On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 10:54:21PM +0000, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
> Dear CWG-Stewardship,
> Here attached is the first version of the Final Proposal. My computer 
> crashed in the midst of formatting changes, and I have only been able 
> to recover this version at this time. Substantive changes are all 
> included, but it¹s not as Œfinal¹ as I had intended to send you.
> Open Items for discussion on call Tuesday
> * PTI Board skill set requirements (paragraph 102)
> * Need final version of DT-N/X/SR (page 23)
> * DT-C to provide an updated version of their Charter and annex 
> documents following review of the Public Comment
> * DT-F to confirm if there are any changes to Section III.A.iii (page 
> 27)
> * With regard to the replacement of approval function for major 
> architectural and operational changes: the ICANN Board will be 
> responsible for approving changes, but there remains the question of 
> what will commission a working group and deliver the report to the 
> Board? Is this an item for the CSC?
> * .INT language
> * Section IV.D. Implementation List
> * Section VI
> Staff edits to make
> * Add Term Sheet as annex
> * Renumber annexes
> * Fix glossary to alpha order
> * Fix numbering and heading formatting
> Final stretch!
> ‹Grace

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

Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list