This seems to leave out a step from what I thought we were saying
A result of the IFR is that they might make a recommendation that the a Separation review occur.
The IFR report undergoes a comment period before it goes to the Board, and depending on the comments &c. the Board may approve.
If they approve the reccomendation for Separation Mechanism, a cross community WG, is initiated to take the outcome of the IFR report and decide what needs to be done to repsond to the issue discussed in that report. This includes the possiblity of creating an RFP and selcting a new operator. Or it could recommend other remediation methods. This would be an arduous process on the order of this CWG efffort.
Like any CWG this group has community input and comment periods.
At the end it submits its recommendation to the Board, which first does an comment period.
I may be misreading the content below, but I do not think this.
avri
On 22-Apr-15 02:08, Seun Ojedeji
wrote:
>
> 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)
>
> (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.
>
>
 |
This email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus software. |
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship