Avri,
Thanks for this and for agreeing to assist with further co-ordination on the Separation Process / Separation Review Process.
Reading through the Sidley Memo dated 3rd May 2015, I noted the following point:
Note to CWG: What is the intent of having the IFR recommend a “Separation Review” rather than having separation be one of the many recommendations the IFR may make? Meaning what is the benefit of a separate Separation Review process that is incremental to the IFR? This memo does not yet discuss the Separation Review and mechanism as that is pending further CWG discussion.]
It seems to me that we should at least be able to articulate an answer to the question above or point to where it has already been answered or consider a variant i.e. potentially not have the incremental process to the IFR.
Jonathan
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org]
Sent: 02 May 2015 20:02
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Action Item response: Background note on Separability Process
Hi,
Action item: Avri to identify open items with regards to separation mechanism
A snapshot is include of the first draft of note that can be found at:
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JphPfdKG-kjMIY2Gc0MbsE9q6Semq3ghMYLF1FCgX_4/edit?usp=sharing>
This document is open to comments and suggested edits, as has become my habit in this project.
I have, incidentally, suggested renaming this as the Separability Process to avoid confusion with the main separation discussion based around affiliates and the like.
avri
| This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. |
