This answer, IMHO, is a timely reminder of what is.

I am ever bemused that reasonable men and women would continue to conflate, even confuse, two different concepts: ICANN, the corporation, is a different animal from ICANN, the multi-stakeholder organisation. The one has a different set of responsibilities from the other. 

It was a struggle for the At-Large to understand in conceptualising expected behaviour of an At-Large selected director.  Because we struggle with understanding the socialisation of an American corporation.  And the fealty of the directors of the Board of such an animal.

We may need ole Foghorn Leghorn's help here.  But it is time enough to learn this.

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> 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

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