Well done Chuck I support those edits
The FAQ is very good and very helpful but I suggest that the three bullets under the strengths for Question 1 be reordered as follows:
· The proposed structure allows for a formal contract between ICANN and the
IANA functions operator, which further evidences and supports functional
separation.
· Without a contract, other means of establishing expectations regarding
performance levels and related terms would need to be identified, which would
likely be less formal and less enforceable than through a contractual relationship.
Recourse for a “breach” of those terms and conditions would be limited to
internal redress mechanisms such as through the IFR team and the CSC.
· If there is a future need to separate or divest ICANN of the IANA functions, the
work of identifying and segregating assets will have already been done. This
should enhance the separability of the IANA functions.
All I did is move what was the first bullet to the last bullet. Because separation is perceived as a last resort and unlikely option, it doesn’t seem to me that we should lead with that advantage.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 4:12 PM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FAQ on Legal Counsel Memorandum on Proposed Post-Transition Structure
Dear all,
To help inform the public comment proceeding, we have put together a FAQ based on Sidley's memorandum from 3 May. This FAQ will be posted on the Public Comment page within the hour and included in the reference documents related to the proposal: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en
We are working on a more extensive FAQ based on the questions received during the webinars.
Have a good weekend,
Grace
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship