Grace, all

See my comments below and I’ve also added a comment

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
Sent: Thursday, 4 June 2015 9:07 PM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC

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

In response to Sidley’s comment: Is this an IFR or something else? The answer is it is not an IFR, but it could be something else undertaken by ICANN to address the performance issue/s that has been bought to the attention of the ICANN Board/CEO by the CSC because the issues have not been resolved via other means.

A few things to note regarding the Remediation Action Plan:

· It is for illustrative purposes only.

· It is intended that a Remediation Action Plan would be developed and agreed by the PTI and CSC after both have been established.

· The Remediation Action Plan was drafted before an IFR was created.

Page 78: Annex J—I have added a comment. There is a step missing between 3) and 4) It was not envisaged that attempts at remediation by the CSC would stop at the PTI Board, they would then follow a path of escalation through the President, GDD and then ICANN Board/CEO if required.  So it is certainly not the case that if there is no resolution at the PTI Board level that the next step would be the ccNSO and GNSO. This is consistent with the draft Remedial Action Plan.

• Page 80: DT-M to review footnote
• Page 81: DT-M/DT-C to comment on Sidley note 

The page numbers may have changed due to changes. I did not see a note on Page 81.

• 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