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

April 12, 2016

      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@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@icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne av* Greg Shatan
*Sendt:* 12. april 2016 15:43
*Til:* Gomes, Chuck
*Kopi:* cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:40 AM
*To:* cwg-stewardship@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@sidley.com
<sflanagan@sidley.com>]
*Sent:* 12 April 2016 02:33
*To:* Client Committee <cwg-client@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
sflanagan@sidley.com
www.sidley.com
*[image: 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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship