I support many of the edits/changes that Jonathan proposed, but would highlight in particular this one:
·
Paragraph 112 (PTI board) replace the word “could” with “must”
Also, in same paragraph delete the phrase “(who may or may not be members of the ICANN Board)”.
As noted
during the phone conversations, some of us do not consider ICANN board members to be independent enough, but others may not agree. So I suggest not mentioning it specifically.
Para
116: Chuck notes that something is missing or awkward about this phrase in
the changing relationship post-IANA Stewardship Transition
·
…it
should be “the changing relationship between IANA and ICANN.”
Referring
to comments by Andrew Sullivan I agree that the removal of the word “naming” from
¶406 (Annex L)
would be a mistake. Although we want all the current
IANA functions, resources and staff to be transferred to PTI, the separation process described in Annex L would ONLY apply to the naming related functions.
In
that vein, I would have real trouble with Martin’s suggestion that in Paragraph 108 that “it
[would] be easier to grant the PTI rights to use while keeping these under the rights of ICANN?” This undermines the whole PTI model, which was to create a separate corporate affiliate, not a mere “right to use” relationship. I don’t think we should be fiddling
with fundamental elements of the model at this point.
--MM
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2015 5:58 PM
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Grace Abuhamad'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC
I chose to layer my edits onto Chuck’s redline.
That way, staff have a single document that contains both.
I trust that this is helpful.
Thank you to everyone for hard work and a comprehensive proposal which has emerged.
Jonathan
From: Gomes, Chuck
[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
Sent: 06 June 2015 01:15
To: Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC
My input on Proposal v.3 is highlighted in the attached file. Note in all cases where I suggested edits I also
entered a comment except in one footnote where I made a very minor edit and Word wouldn’t let me insert a comment.
Chuck
From:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:07 AM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC
Dear all,
Attached is the updated proposal. This version includes the edits listed below.
Your comments are requested and welcome until Sunday 23:59 UTC.
If you don’t have time to read the whole proposal, I’ve highlighted specific areas in the document that require feedback.
Areas that require feedback:
Edits included in version 3:
As you know, we had a technical glitch with document versions right before the call yesterday. In recovering the version,
there were a lot of formatting changes that had to be done. I have attached version 2.5 (the in-between version) so that you have it,
but please note that version 3 is the version to work off of. There are still lots of formatting fixes in version 3, but we will work on these over the weekend and on Monday.
We are almost there!
Grace