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]
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
****************************************************************************************************
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
