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>https://community.icann.org/x/MYcQAw
Best, Grace
From: Guru Acharya <<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>gurcharya@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri@acm.org> Cc: "<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship@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" <<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri@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
At 15/12/2014 03:16 PM, Donna Austin wrote:
All
I largely agree with Christopher. I think we are creating complexity where it does not necessarily need to be, but as we are here I want to reiterate a few comments I made on the RFP 3 call earlier today, and these comments come from a gTLD registry operator perspective:
· Operational stability and reliability of the IANA service is imperative to the business operations of registry operators and as such this should be a critical consideration in any discussions.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship