I agree that the footnote idea seems reasonable and also that the sue of Separation Mechanism is not ideal terminology.
Jonathan
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
Sent: 22 April 2015 19:00
To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts
Avri’s footnote suggestion seems okay to me.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 1:25 PM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts
Hi,
perhaps we need a footnote asking this question.
for example:
There is an open question for comment on whether the recommendation of the IFR for the initiation of Separation discussion should be carried out by the IFR itself or should be assigned to a CWG as indicated in this section.
Note: all of this conversation on it has convinced me, have not checked with other till now, that Section L and the reference to it in the main doc should be Separation review not mechanism. though that does not seem right either becasue it would do more than review, though it might not go as far as RFP. IFR Follow-up Team? I don't know.
avri
On 22-Apr-15 12:04, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
Yes, I suppose that is the implication i.e. if the additional work is not done by the CWG then it would need to be sufficiently specified and scoped in the recommendations of the IFR group.
Thanks,
Jonathan
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org]
Sent: 22 April 2015 16:13
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts
Hi,
Do you mean that the IFR should also do any necessary RFP &c.?
avriOn 22-Apr-15 11:07, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
My personal view is that I am not yet convinced by the need for or perhaps do not adequately understand the need for the extra (CWG) step.
However, as I understand your current wording, it seems to be a discretionary step that the IFR may choose to recommend to use or not.
Therefore, since it is therefore not “baked in” , I do not have major reservations.
Thanks,
Jonathan
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org]
Sent: 22 April 2015 15:19
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts
Hi,
A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed.
avriOn 21 Apr 2015 23:O04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client@icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Following up on today’s call, below is proposed language for III. A and Annex L.
>> Annex L:
>
>
>
> Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
>
> An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration, with ultimate input by the multistakeholder community through the CCWG Accountability mechanisms under consideration.(1)
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a Cross Community Working Group to make specific recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR. These could include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This would would be according toa cross community working group chartered by the Board and its recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration. The cross community process would include the collection of community input and intermediate comment periods on the work, with ultimate input by the multistakeholder community through the CCWG Accountability mechanisms under consideration.(1)>> (1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for separation should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board, or whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team.
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for a separation process should be chartered by the Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether the Separation process CWG recommendation for separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
_______________________________________________CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
_______________________________________________CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
| This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. |