[CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version 5

Martin Boyle Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
Tue Jun 9 16:37:21 UTC 2015

Hi All,

As I won't be on this evening's call. I thought I should flag the following points from the new document:

*         Paragraph 108 (p. 24) & comment MK8:  I'm not sure that the response to my comment answers my question, which is about the proposal to transfer to related resources, processes, data, and know-how to the PTI.  The draft recommends this, but I want to know how easy it would be for ICANN to recover these assets should it need to transfer the service to a new operator.  I would have expected rights to be held by the parent, so I am curious how the proposal will work down the track.

*         Paragraph 120 & footnote 11:  I am ok with this wording, which seems to allow for some flexibility should two reviews appear in quick succession.  (In the footnote it should read "If a Special IFR is initiated..."

*         Paragraph 128:  I'm not sure why this is being deleted.  I guess it is a bit of detail, but it would be good to ensure that a transfer of the IANA functions operation be evaluated after a reasonable amount of time (and not within the first few  months of the new operator!).

*         Paragraph 132 (page 26):  while I think it would be appropriate (if only as a courtesy) to escalate to both, this wording is ok for me.

*         Paragraph 134:  I have commented on the DT-A revised text (which I think will need shortening for the main body of the text).

*         Paragraph 191 bullet 3:  I have sympathy with Chuck's suggestion.  It sounds to me an expensive and unnecessary level of separation, but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.

*         Annex D diagram: my earlier comment was really about where does the IFR report - it is shown into PTI and ICANN Boards, whereas I think it should be into the ICANN Board.

*         Annex G table p.76 last row:  I'm ok with the points made by Donna, but the key thing is that this is remedial action.  It is the next step - when attempts to correct fail - that it is put to the GNSO and ccNSO with a recommendation to move to escalation.

*         Annex J paragraph 382 3):  I agree Donna's point.  There is a confusion of terminology between the role of the CSC to try to resolve problems and the wider role when it recognises that it was not achieving this and refers to the GNSO and ccNSO - the escalation step.

*         Annex L paragraph 394 2nd bullet:  I would suggest, "Soliciting input on requirements to plan, and participation in, the RFP Process"

*         Annex S:  IFR on special review:  wording here is important - the CSC simply flags a need for a review, does not initiate it.

*         Annex S: Changes to key personnel:  I would be happy with the PTI Board oversight suggested in KP99 - this is appropriate as it is accountable to the ICANN Board which is accountable to the community.  However, the third bullet also needs removing or editing as identified by KP100.

*         Annex S:  PTI not to change policies column 2 I think a word too many has been deleted!

And that's it, folks!  Enjoy the call this evening.


From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: 09 June 2015 13:15
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version 5

Dear All,

In order to facilitate the discussion and review of the latest version of the proposal, the Co-Chairs have reviewed the document and suggested a number of edits / responses to address the remaining comments that they believe reflect the views of the CWG-Stewardship. As a result, those items have been 'unflagged' (no longer highlighted in yellow) so that the focus of today's call can be on those items that require CWG input (highlighted in yellow). Of course, if you disagree with any of the proposed edits or believe further discussion is needed on some of these unflagged comments, please share those with the list so these items can be marked accordingly.

Note that in addition to the edits proposed by the Co-Chairs, a number of minor edits have been included (in redline) that were provided by Sidley to the client committee as well as updates to the table of content, the escalation mechanisms flow charts to reflect the latest state Annex J and the emergency process figure (only formatting updates).

Best regards,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150609/2e975edd/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list