Seun, I sent them several hours ago in a Word doc along with the ensuing discussion. Greg On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Greg,
Just to remind you that you are yet to forward my comments/questions to client committee. Items 3 to 5 especially requires their response.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 18 Apr 2015 19:20, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','seun.ojedeji@gmail.com');>> wrote:
To Client committee,
Kindly find a few comments/questions below:
1. The existing IANA naming functions department, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI I don't think there is "IANA naming function department" but there is "IANA functions department" So i propose the following:
The IANA naming functions, related administrative staff and resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI from the exiting "IANA functions department"
2. The IANA portion of the ICANN budget would be subject to
I think it may be useful to be more specific about the IANA budget referred. So the wording below may be useful:
The IANA portion of the ICANN budget *related to naming* would be subject to.......
3 .....conducted by a multi-stakeholder body, independent from ICANN
There is no section of the document that describe what independent in that statement meant. If it mean independent of ICANN board then it should be clearly stated.
4. The strengths of this proposed structure are as follows: Isn't item c on also a weakness in practical sense considering that ICANN is the source of funding of IANA?
5. The weaknesses of the proposed structure are as follows:
I think introduction of new entity/structures creates accountability concerns which i think should be included as a weakness. Also the running cost of those structures should be included as a weakness (overall the end-user bears the cost) Last but not the list, the overall statement seem to miss mention of the formation of the charter/bylaw for the PRF?
Regards
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Client Committee List for CWG < cwg-client@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client@icann.org');>> wrote:
Dear All,
Attached is a summary of the current legal structure under consideration by the CWG. This also includes the CCWG dependencies.
Please let us know if you have any comments or would like to discuss.
Best regards,
Sharon
*SHARON* *FLANAGAN* Partner
*Sidley Austin LLP* +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan@sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan@sidley.com');>
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Cwg-client@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng');>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !