Alan, I agree that access to this document under clause C.7.3 is extremely essential. This document operationalises the concept of separability. And separability is the underlying foundation of our present transition proposal. I request the chairs of this CWG to directly request IANA staff for this document. While we all might agree on the potential benefits of separability (including continued accountability of IANA), many of us disagree on the potential costs of separability. By costs, I mean an assessment of all complexities required for a smooth and disruption-free transition between operators (not accounting costs per se). This document under C.7.3 will help us understand the potential social costs of separability. Without knowledge of these costs, this CWG can not make an informed choice between the two alternative proposals. ICANN has an extremely slow track record of responding to DIDP requests; making the response redundant for the use by this CWG. I strongly urge the chairs to intervene. On 23 Dec 2014 07:16, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I must say that I find this level of bureaucracy totally unreasonable.
This is not someone from outside the organization trying to get ICANN to reveal some secret, it is a properly chartered ICANN CWG trying to understand its task mandated by the Board.
Alan
At 22/12/2014 09:49 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Hi James, I understand that there is a tight timeline, but the person seeking the
information should submit the request, not staff.
--Grace
From: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net > Date: Monday, December 22, 2014 4:08 AM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org >, "Gomes, Chuck" < cgomes@verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca >, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Hi Grace,
Given the tight timelines involved here could a member of staff manage/expedite a response on behalf of the chairs/CWG?
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 5:51 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Alan Greenberg; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Dear all, For a more fulsome response to your questions on obtaining the Contingency Plan, please submit a request through ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en.
From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:55 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca >, Grace Abuhamad < grace.abuhamad@icann.org >, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com>, Avri Doria < avri@acm.org> Cc: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
At a minimum, we should ask what needs to be done to allow some review of it.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:08 AM To: Grace Abuhamad; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
I believe that any such document must be shared with the CWG, if only with the Co-Chairs or some specific sub-set of the CWG who of course must sign an appropriate confidentiality document and perhaps get clearance for what they share (with an appeal process in the case of a disagreement).
Alan
At 17/12/2014 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad 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