Hi all,

I’m generally ok with this.  Thanks to the secretariat for an excellent job (again) in pulling all the bits together.

A few comments (mainly questions and minor suggestions, but the comments on paragraph 133, Annex G and page 118 are substantive):

· Paragraph 108:  question – wouldn’t legally transferring “related resources, processes, data, and know-how” to PTI mean that there would need to be a process for recovering this should the IANA functions operation be subject to an RfP?  Or put another way, wouldn’t it be easier to grant the PTI rights to use while keeping these under the rights of ICANN?

· Paragraph 105:  suggestion – given it is an American legal term, shouldn’t “affiliate” be explained somewhere?

· Paragraph 112 & footnote 8:  repeated wording – the idea of using NomCom is in the paragraph and in the footnote using slightly different wording.  I’d suggest deleting “for which the NomCom is qualified” to avoid confusion.

· Paragraph 120 footnote 10:  missing text – I suggest that you add “periodic review” at the end of the footnote.

· Paragraph 133:  I have concerns about this new text on SLEs.  I see no reason to expect SLEs to be “in keeping with actual IANA performance” and have noted in the past that SLEs should be related to operational requirements.  There can be a substantial cost impact of setting SLEs too high.  That a performance is not set as a service level does not prevent it being monitored to see how the IANA functions operator is performing.  I would suggest replacing, “more in keeping with actual IANA performance” by “appropriate to the needs of customers.”

· Paragraph 142 2:  question – should we say who is responsible for developing the transition framework?

· Annex D:  question – I thought that we had agreed that the IFR should report to the ICANN Board.  It would then be for them to discuss action with the PTI Board.

· Annex F:  missing footnote – footnote 48 is absent of content.

· Annex G:  table in paragraph 356 last cell.  I’m not sure how this has happened but the second bullet (“independent review … can continue”) seems to suggest escalation at this stage, whereas this is about remedial action and we have also agreed that the CSC would escalate through the ccNSO & GNSO.  Actually I think that this step was seen as approaching the parent company to try to unblock the issues (this might be appropriate if the PTI needs additional resources – budget, additional staff beyond their agreed plans).  This bullet should really be about ICANN Board intervention to address issues?

· Annex L:  Paragraph 392 3^rd bullet: clarification – I really think that before going to develop the RfP, the SCWG should seek input on views for what needs to be included in the RfP (in particular from the customers, although the NoI & FNoI were to the community when NTIA went through this process.  This would help focus thinking in the preparation of the requirements for the new contract.

· Annex S page 116 (“COST/PRICE”):  pure ignorance – I’m not sure what “No charge to ICANN” means.  All (or most) ccTLD contributions to the operation of the IANA are via the ccNSO (the voluntary contributions).  So I would expect ICANN to pass on the PTI that amount that was calculated as being the cost of the IANA service.  What am I missing?

· Page 118 top row comment [KP68]:  we have agreed that there should not be an independent evaluation of root-zone change requests, so this row should remain deleted, shouldn’t it?

Thanks

By the way, I will not be able to join the call on Tuesday evening, but I’m happy to try to respond to any feedback on the issues I have identified.

Martin

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
Sent: 05 June 2015 05:07
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC
Importance: High

Dear all, 

Attached is the updated proposal. This version includes the edits listed below. Your comments are requested and welcome until Sunday 23:59 UTC. If you don’t have time to read the whole proposal, I’ve highlighted specific areas in the document that require feedback. 

Areas that require feedback: 

• Paragraph 164 (p.32): needs text
• Paragraph 172 (p.34): DT-F to confirm edit
• Section IV edits should be reviewed by CWG (Andrew perhaps?)
• Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri perhaps?) 
• Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about status of footnote
• Page 73: DT-C to confirm response to Sidley comment
• Page 80: DT-M to review footnote
• Page 81: DT-M/DT-C to comment on Sidley note 
• Paragraph 389 (p.92): DT-N/SR/X to define “Review Team Liaison” per Sidley’s comment
• Page 111 & 112: Bernard to address Sidley comments

Edits included in version 3: 

• All the comments & edits from Greg, Avri, Sidley, Lise and Andrew. 
• The following items from today’s call: 

• Paragraph 123 has been reviewed to be internally consistent 
• Paragraph 141: adjusted text around CCWG-Accountability structure
• Paragraph 167: removed sentence 
• Paragraph 170: Removed the word “multistakholder" and use 'customer-based' instead)
• Added footnote to paragraph 169 about .INT (footnote is also in Annex to section II)
• Paragraph 275: fixed composition of IFRT (and also fixed this in SCWG composition)
• Annex S: Added disclaimer about term sheet

• DT C Charter updates (see Section III and Annex G)
• Section IV edits
• Section VI edits

As you know, we had a technical glitch with document versions right before the call yesterday. In recovering the version, there were a lot of formatting changes that had to be done. I have attached version 2.5 (the in-between version) so that you have it, but please note that version 3 is the version to work off of.  There are still lots of formatting fixes in version 3, but we will work on these over the weekend and on Monday. 

We are almost there!

Grace