Chuck, your understanding is correct.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Monday, 20 April 2015 4:49 PM
To: Martin Boyle; lisefuhrforwader; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Structure and comments from Sidley Austin - Periodic Reviews

If I understand the latest charter of the CSC, it would not trigger reviews but would instead escalate to the ccNSO or GNSO.  Is my understanding incorrect?

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 1:35 PM
To: lisefuhrforwader; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Structure and comments from Sidley Austin - Periodic Reviews

Reviewing the text with edits from Sidley I saw on pp48-9 (What should trigger reviews? In annex D) that “although a super-majority of the CSC may also be able trigger an “off-cycle” Periodic Review Function if necessary to ensure satisfactory performance.”  Given the small number of members proposed for the CSC, I am not sure this is meaningful!  The DT-C work suggested an escalation to the ccNSO and GNSO for a decision – which would not be unreasonable given their role in organising the periodic reviews) – and a supermajority of the relevant councils makes a lot more sense.

Martin

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr
Sent: 20 April 2015 13:50
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Structure and comments from Sidley Austin

Dear All,

Please be aware of the following documents from Sidley Austin.

1. The structural model diagram

2. Summary of Legal Structure

3. CWG - Draft Transition Proposal (Sidley Comments)

Best regards,

Lise