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
Best,
Grace
From: Guru Acharya
<gurcharya@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM
To: Avri Doria
<avri@acm.org>
Cc:
"
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"
<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
-
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
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship