At a minimum, we should ask what needs to be done to allow some review of it. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:08 AM To: Grace Abuhamad; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT I believe that any such document must be shared with the CWG, if only with the Co-Chairs or some specific sub-set of the CWG who of course must sign an appropriate confidentiality document and perhaps get clearance for what they share (with an appeal process in the case of a disagreement). Alan At 17/12/2014 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote: Hi all, We looked into this and noted that the Continuity & Contingency Plan is confidential and cannot be distributed. Notes, transcripts, and recordings for RFP4 call are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/MYcQAw Best, Grace From: Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Hi Avri, This was an action item for the staff from the call on 25th November. I believe they have already put in a request for the document with the IANA staff. Maybe Grace or Marika can update us on the request. "ACTION staff : Ask IANA staff to share details on 7.3 that might be available for the public and/or online" On 17 Dec 2014 17:29, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: Hi, Is that 'transition to a "successor contractor" plan' available to the CWG? avri On 17-Dec-14 05:26, Matthew Shears wrote: Alan Section C.7 in the current contract addresses issues of continuity of operations - particularly C.7.3, according to which ICANN should have a transition to a "successor contractor" plan in place at the moment Matthew On 12/17/2014 3:38 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: As someone whose ICANN 'job" is supporting/defending the needs of Internet users, I will point out that security and stability of the IANA functions is of paramount importance for the ALAC as well. I look forward to the seeing how that can be assured in a potentially disruptive switch of the IANA operator where it may be that there is no continuity of either staff or systems. Alan At 15/12/2014 03:16 PM, Donna Austin wrote: All I largely agree with Christopher. I think we are creating complexity where it does not necessarily need to be, but as we are here I want to reiterate a few comments I made on the RFP 3 call earlier today, and these comments come from a gTLD registry operator perspective: * Operational stability and reliability of the IANA service is imperative to the business operations of registry operators and as such this should be a critical consideration in any discussions. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship