[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IFRT Recommendations for Contract, SOW or CSC Charter Amendments

Tue Apr 12 18:04:34 UTC 2016

ICANN is only a direct party for numbers and protocols, and that could change over time as either could decide to contract directly with PTI after it is more well-established. In the case of names, however, ICANN, under the guidance of the ICANN community is the entity which contracts with PTI, which is why it makes little sense for ICANN corporate to have a “consultation right” regarding remedies to the performance of PTI

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:39 AM
To: Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg at nkom.no>
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IFRT Recommendations for Contract, SOW or CSC Charter Amendments

Elise --

You can speak my  name (and it's not "Voldemort").

Greg 😈

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Lindeberg, Elise <elise.lindeberg at nkom.no<mailto:elise.lindeberg at nkom.no>> wrote:
I agree with - if ICANN is a part of the contract anyway, let’s put a consultation right in predictable frame.

Elise

Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] På vegne av Greg Shatan
Sendt: 12. april 2016 15:43
Til: Gomes, Chuck
Kopi: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IFRT Recommendations for Contract, SOW or CSC Charter Amendments

If ICANN is a direct party to the contract, a consultation right seems appropriate.  I expect they would find a way to make their concerns known with or without a formal consultation right, so it's probably better to define how that will happen.  This can avoid unfortunately timed ad hoc interventions.

Greg

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
I have two thoughts on this:

•         Because PTI will be an affiliate of ICANN, would the consultation with PTI suffice?

•         ICANN could comment during the public comment period.

That said, I don’t initially see any problems with a consultation with ICANN except that it might add more time to the process.  Therefore, if it happens, I think it should happen in parallel with one of the other steps.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:40 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IFRT Recommendations for Contract, SOW or CSC Charter Amendments

All,

Please review below and provide any relevant input as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Jonathan

From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com]
Sent: 12 April 2016 02:33
To: Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>>
Subject: [client com] IFRT Recommendations for Contract, SOW or CSC Charter Amendments

Dear All,

There is an open question in the ICANN draft bylaws relating to IFRT-recommended amendments to the IANA Naming Function Contract, SOW and the CSC Charter (Section 18.6(a)(i)).  ICANN had requested a consultation right on amendments to the Contract and SOW since it is a party to the Contract.  On the CWG call, there was a comment on whether the consultation right for the ICANN board was appropriate.   The CWG proposal does not contemplate an ICANN consultation right.

Paragraph 272 of the CWG proposal states:

272               The review could identify recommended amendments to the IANA SOW to address any performance deficiencies, or to the CSC charter to address any issues or deficiencies. The process of developing and approving amendments will take place through a defined process that includes, at minimum, the following steps, in advance of an amendment to either document being proposed:

›        Consultation with the IANA Functions Operator;

›        Consultation with the CSC;

›        Public input session for ccTLD and gTLD operators; and

›        Public comment period.

Best regards,
Sharon

SHARON R. FLANAGAN

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 California Street
Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 415 772 1271<tel:%2B1%20415%20772%201271>
sflanagan at sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>
www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com>
[Image removed by sender. SIDLEY]

****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

****************************************************************************************************

_______________________________________________
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/20160412/af7a8d59/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 416 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160412/af7a8d59/image001-0001.jpg>