Agree with Avri and Elise. On 2/2/2015 10:02 AM, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:
I agree with Avri on this - the notion of separability has to be underlined as common to both models.
And, since this is a key element in the CWG discussions, principles and draft solutions , I think we should formulate a question to the community about the importance of separability, that is if an all internal solution creates enough separation and independent oversight and review.
Elise
*Fra:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne av* Avri Doria *Sendt:* 2. februar 2015 09:21 *Til:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore
Hi,
One to the comments I would make is that the notion of separability, the ability to remove the IANA function from ICANN without necessarily separating the function from ICANN at this time, is common to both solutions as it is contained in the principles and both solutions allow for this, though in a different manner (contract co vs. so-called nuclear options). I beleive it should get a point in the " *Common points between the two models* "
avri
On 02-Feb-15 07:47, Avri Doria wrote: