Hi, Milton, we decided that it would be periodic, but also that in extreme circumstance it could be triggered out of band. avri On 17-Apr-15 11:16, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Stephanie and others:
Seems to me a “periodic review” should occur according to a fixed time period.
That is, it should be “triggered” by the calendar, not by some event or problem.
I cannot overstate the superior accountability features of fixed, regular periodicity. The incumbent operator (whether it is ICANN or anyone else) is ALWAYS going to resist a review and possible new RFP unless it is hardwired into the system. If the review is a routine, institutionalized event then all the politics and drama about whether we have the review goes away. You have it because it is time to have it. If you make it an exceptional event, non-periodic, then it is more easily abused (someone gets angry at someone at threatens to mount a review, more divisive (some people will think we should have one, others won’t), more drama (incumbent resists) and thus more time consuming and destabilizing. People will fight about whether to have the review, instead of just getting on with the review.
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Duchesneau, Stephanie *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 9:39 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG
Depending on the model transition adopted we would potentially need an amendment to the bylaw to note when/how the Periodic Reviews would be automatically triggered.
Stephanie
*Stephanie Duchesneau** **Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4^th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 *Office:***+1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040 *Fax: *+1.202.533.2623*/*www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 9:18 AM *To:* avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG
Do we need them for the IANA Review Team (formally the Periodic Review Team)?
Chuck
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 7:56 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG
Hi,
Was thinking about bylaws for DT-N Review and DT-X Separation mechanism and realized that we might also need one to establish the CSC.
What other bylaws might the CWG need. We should probably make a list.
avri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image removed by sender. Avast logo <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
