Avri, Yes, I suppose that is the implication i.e. if the additional work is not done by the CWG then it would need to be sufficiently specified and scoped in the recommendations of the IFR group. Thanks, Jonathan From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 22 April 2015 16:13 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Hi, Do you mean that the IFR should also do any necessary RFP &c.? avri On 22-Apr-15 11:07, Jonathan Robinson wrote: Avri, My personal view is that I am not yet convinced by the need for or perhaps do not adequately understand the need for the extra (CWG) step. However, as I understand your current wording, it seems to be a discretionary step that the IFR may choose to recommend to use or not. Therefore, since it is therefore not "baked in" , I do not have major reservations. Thanks, Jonathan From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 22 April 2015 15:19 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Hi, A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed. avri On 21 Apr 2015 23:O04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on today's call, below is proposed language for III. A and
Annex L.
Annex L:
Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration, with ultimate input by the multistakeholder community through the CCWG Accountability mechanisms under consideration.(1)
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a Cross Community Working Group to make specific recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR. These could include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This would would be according toa cross community working group chartered by the Board and its recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration. The cross community process would include the collection of community input and intermediate comment periods on the work, with ultimate input by the multistakeholder community through the CCWG Accountability mechanisms under consideration.(1)
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for separation should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board, or whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team.
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for a separation process should be chartered by the Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether the Separation process CWG recommendation for separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team. _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>