Hi Martin, On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
I think that Greg is right, that we were not mandated in the CWG to look at numbers or protocol parameters. While that might sit uneasily, I’m not sure I really know about the flow of funding or the accountability/stewardship role in the light of Milton’s assertion.
I am not sure Greg is implying what you stated above. The CWG proposal is indeed moving IANA to PTI which includes everything related to the other 2 communities (perhaps except existing MOUs which ofcourse is not yet clear)
Specifically asking CRISP & IANAPLAN for views as to where they would see their relationship lying (given the ring-fencing of the IANA functions operator into a subsidiary in ICANN) would seem to me to be appropriate. They could, after all, contract/sign an MoU with either ICANN or ICANN’s affiliate.
This was exactly what i had earlier suggested; If our proposal is going to affect the other communities in the manner we are proposing, i think it saves us a lot of time by flagging the respective communities to know their thoughts before our public comment. Instead of submitting and then having ICG come back to us....and as a matter of fact, it think it will be an act of "courtesy" if that is done. (again i know CRISP formerly indicated that they are open to receive such interaction, i expect same with IETF as well) Regards
Martin
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* 21 April 2015 17:14 *To:* CW Lists *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3
I agree with Alissa that this needs to be clarified. Some of the lack of clarity is due to concern about having a proposal that goes beyond naming functions. This has resulted in some odd phrasings and odd proposals.
In my view, splitting the IANA personnel and assets so this is a "names-only" proposal is unrealistic and unnecessary. Because we are within ICANN, we have a different relationship to the IANA Functions group. We should make it clear that the whole ball of wax would move to PTI, and put that out for public comment. We should flag this specifically for the CRISP and IANAPLAN group.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
In this instance, I agree with Christopher. I believe both statements are accurate (though the first is less than mellifluous in its phrasing).
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:36 AM, CW Lists <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
I prefer the existing text, unchanged.
CW
On 21 Apr 2015, at 16:47, Brenden Kuerbis <bnkuerbi@syr.edu> wrote:
Hi Marika,
The first bullet in Section III.A says:
ICANN, through an affiliate controlled by ICANN, to continue as the IANA Functions Operator for the Naming Related Services through the creation of a separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI).
Section III.A.i.a, which is text provided by Sidley in consultation with the CWG, says:
A contract would be entered between PTI and ICANN, which would give PTI the rights and obligations as the IANA Functions Operator.
I believe the latter statement is correct, and the prior bullet is inconsistent with it (or at least very unclear). Perhaps Sidley could provide more accurate text for the bullet in Section III.A, or I would suggest:
- Creation of a legally separated affiliate, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), to provide the IANA functions.
This would be followed by the existing bullets:
- Establishment of service level agreement between ICANN and PTI, the IANA Functions Operator for the Naming Related Services. - Changes proposed to root zone environment and relationship with root zone maintainer.
-- Brenden
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Please find attached an updated draft which now incorporates, amongst others, a summary for section III, DT X, information from the legal memo, updates as a result of comments received and proposed text for section IIIB. Note that we’ve also reorganised the annexes to match the flow of the document.
*Please note that that there a number of comments that have been flagged that need further consideration by the different DTs. We would like to encourage the leads of the DTs to pick up on the items that have been flagged for review and provide feedback on those items to the CWG mailing list as soon as possible.*
Also, note that we’ve incorporated those edits and/or comments that we considered corrections and/or clarifications of existing content as well as responses to some of the Sidley comments. If you do not agree with those responses or updates or are of the view that these are more than corrections and/or clarifications, please flag those accordingly.
You are encouraged to flag any items that you think warrant CWG consideration by Tuesday 20 April at 16.00 UTC at the latest. Other minor edits and/or clarifications can be submitted until Tuesday 20 April 23.59 UTC.
For your convenience I’ve attached a redline and clean version both in Word as well as pdf.
Thanks again for all your feedback!
Marika
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !