Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 21 Apr 2015 23:04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on today’s call, below is proposed language for III. A and
Annex L.
III.A.
[to replace current first two bullets]
• A new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would
be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI.
SO: "IANA naming functions," this item was one of what I raised in my comment which Greg forwarded to client( unfortunately I did not get response on), I am unclear why that phrase is still maintained. The understanding i got was that PTI will be the new IANA operator post-transition so again how does the message above put that in context?
• ICANN would enter into a contract with PTI, granting PTI the
rights and obligations to serve as the IANA Functions Operator for the naming functions. This contract would also include service level agreements for the naming functions.
SO: Again this validates my comment above; is PTI no longer going to be IANA function operator but IANA *names* function operator? Are we trying to split the functions and divide IANA staff, funding, resources et all? This seem unclear and can be complicated. That said, I hope we are not too focused on legal possibilities at the expense of operational realities. I rest my case. Regards
Annex L:
Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
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.
SHARON FLANAGAN Partner
Sidley Austin LLP +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan@sidley.com
From: cwg-client-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Client Committee List for CWG
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:22 PM To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] FW: Notes CWG Meeting #42 on Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC
Client Committee — Here below are the notes from the call we just ended.
Timeline attached and also on the Wiki.
CWG Meeting #42 on Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC
Agenda:
1. Opening Remarks
2. Open items on Draft Proposal 3.4
a. To be resolved by Design Teams?
b. To be resolved by CWG?
c. To be resolved during Public Comment?
3. Public Comment
a. Structure
b. Associated Communications
c. Role of CWG Members
4. Timeline
5. AOB
6. Closing Remarks
Notes:
1. Opening Remarks
· Last call before the launch of the Public Comment on the 2nd Draft Proposal.
· We've converged on one proposal for structure
· Today, we'd like to conclude on the last DTs and the outstandings items.
· Need dependencies for CCWG-Accountability to be clarified and noted
2. Open items on Draft Proposal 3.4
The following three items are "aide-memoire" to help think through open issues and how to address them.
a. To be resolved by Design Teams?
b. To be resolved by CWG?
c. To be resolved during Public Comment?
Section III starts on page 17
Going through Sidley comments
Change review period text to "every 5 years"
Page 22, section on IANA Function Review -- help with language from Sidley
Page 17, "ICANN to continue as IFO" -- help with language from Sidley
For DT-A, placeholder text needed because the DT is not complete: capture that significant work has been done to date, but not all are agreed. --> suggest general statement instead
Action (Alan): provide the text for point 4 (after CCWG-Acct meeting)
Action (Staff): do a thorough copyedit
Action (Sidley): propose language for Section III and Annex L
3. Public Comment
a. Structure
· As discussed in Istanbul, staff prepared a template for the comments to be submitted.
· The template will be presented in Word and PDF formats (the PDF will be fillable)
· Use of the template will be strongly encouraged, but not absolutely obligatory (free form comments are also accepted)
· The reason for using a template is to get concrete feedback and also to faciliate analysis and incorporation of feedback
· The template and the Proposal will be published in all ICANN supported languages
b. Associated Communications
· There will be a Chairs' Foreword/Summary
· There will be an updated version of the Xplane Handout presented in Istanbul
· The idea behind the two documents is that they each provide background and narrative on the CWG work process: the foreword/summary does this in a text form, and the XPlane handout provides a visual form.
c. Role of CWG Members
Please make sure that CWG Members ensure that their communities are aware of the comments, the suggested format, and the timeframe for comments.
4. Timeline
Will publish timeline to the list to save for time.
(attached here! :) )
5. AOB
6. Closing Remarks
****************************************************************************************************
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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
Seun, Thanks for bringing this up. Based on the discussion today and on the list, I think the answer to both your questions is "no." Therefore, the inserts need to be corrected to read as follows: • A new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI. • ICANN would enter into a contract with PTI, granting PTI the rights and obligations to serve as the IANA Functions Operator. This contract would also include service level agreements for the naming functions. I think it is still appropriate to limit the SLAs to naming functions, since numbers and protocol parameters have their own MoUs that I believe cover SLAs. However, if this is not the case (or if the current IANA Functions Contract contains SLAs beyond naming functions that should be carried over), then "naming functions" should be changed to "IANA functions." Greg On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 21 Apr 2015 23:04, "Client Committee List for CWG" < cwg-client@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on today’s call, below is proposed language for III. A and
Annex L.
III.A.
[to replace current first two bullets]
• A new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI),
would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI.
SO: "IANA naming functions," this item was one of what I raised in my comment which Greg forwarded to client( unfortunately I did not get response on), I am unclear why that phrase is still maintained. The understanding i got was that PTI will be the new IANA operator post-transition so again how does the message above put that in context?
• ICANN would enter into a contract with PTI, granting PTI the
rights and obligations to serve as the IANA Functions Operator for the naming functions. This contract would also include service level agreements for the naming functions.
SO: Again this validates my comment above; is PTI no longer going to be IANA function operator but IANA *names* function operator? Are we trying to split the functions and divide IANA staff, funding, resources et all?
This seem unclear and can be complicated.
That said, I hope we are not too focused on legal possibilities at the expense of operational realities.
I rest my case.
Regards
Annex L:
Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
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.
SHARON FLANAGAN Partner
Sidley Austin LLP +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan@sidley.com
From: cwg-client-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Client Committee List for CWG
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:22 PM To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] FW: Notes CWG Meeting #42 on Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC
Client Committee — Here below are the notes from the call we just ended.
Timeline attached and also on the Wiki.
CWG Meeting #42 on Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC
Agenda:
1. Opening Remarks
2. Open items on Draft Proposal 3.4
a. To be resolved by Design Teams?
b. To be resolved by CWG?
c. To be resolved during Public Comment?
3. Public Comment
a. Structure
b. Associated Communications
c. Role of CWG Members
4. Timeline
5. AOB
6. Closing Remarks
Notes:
1. Opening Remarks
· Last call before the launch of the Public Comment on the 2nd Draft Proposal.
· We've converged on one proposal for structure
· Today, we'd like to conclude on the last DTs and the outstandings items.
· Need dependencies for CCWG-Accountability to be clarified and noted
2. Open items on Draft Proposal 3.4
The following three items are "aide-memoire" to help think through open issues and how to address them.
a. To be resolved by Design Teams?
b. To be resolved by CWG?
c. To be resolved during Public Comment?
Section III starts on page 17
Going through Sidley comments
Change review period text to "every 5 years"
Page 22, section on IANA Function Review -- help with language from Sidley
Page 17, "ICANN to continue as IFO" -- help with language from Sidley
For DT-A, placeholder text needed because the DT is not complete: capture that significant work has been done to date, but not all are agreed. --> suggest general statement instead
Action (Alan): provide the text for point 4 (after CCWG-Acct meeting)
Action (Staff): do a thorough copyedit
Action (Sidley): propose language for Section III and Annex L
3. Public Comment
a. Structure
· As discussed in Istanbul, staff prepared a template for the comments to be submitted.
· The template will be presented in Word and PDF formats (the PDF will be fillable)
· Use of the template will be strongly encouraged, but not absolutely obligatory (free form comments are also accepted)
· The reason for using a template is to get concrete feedback and also to faciliate analysis and incorporation of feedback
· The template and the Proposal will be published in all ICANN supported languages
b. Associated Communications
· There will be a Chairs' Foreword/Summary
· There will be an updated version of the Xplane Handout presented in Istanbul
· The idea behind the two documents is that they each provide background and narrative on the CWG work process: the foreword/summary does this in a text form, and the XPlane handout provides a visual form.
c. Role of CWG Members
Please make sure that CWG Members ensure that their communities are aware of the comments, the suggested format, and the timeframe for comments.
4. Timeline
Will publish timeline to the list to save for time.
(attached here! :) )
5. AOB
6. Closing Remarks
****************************************************************************************************
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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Greg,
• ICANN would enter into a contract with PTI, granting PTI the rights and obligations to serve as the IANA Functions Operator. This contract would also include service level agreements for the naming functions.
I think it is still appropriate to limit the SLAs to naming functions, since numbers and protocol parameters have their own MoUs that I believe cover SLAs. However, if this is not the case (or if the current IANA Functions Contract contains SLAs beyond naming functions that should be carried over), then "naming functions" should be changed to "IANA functions."
Inserting “naming functions” is accurate. You are correct that the numbers and protocol parameters have their own MoUs and SLAs. Thanks Konstantinos
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
• ICANN would enter into a contract with PTI, granting PTI the rights and obligations to serve as the IANA Functions Operator. This contract would also include service level agreements for the naming functions.
I think it is still appropriate to limit the SLAs to naming functions, since numbers and protocol parameters have their own MoUs that I believe cover SLAs.
This is fine for now, after the PC/when its finally determined that legal separation is our final proposal, then i expect each of the communities to determine whether they will be having their agreement with ICANN or PTI post-transition. Generally speaking and considering PTI will be IANA operator post transition, one would expect transfer of rights to be made to PTI in the same manner to be done for names. Cheers!
However, if this is not the case (or if the current IANA Functions Contract contains SLAs beyond naming functions that should be carried over), then "naming functions" should be changed to "IANA functions."
Greg
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 21 Apr 2015 23:04, "Client Committee List for CWG" < cwg-client@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on today’s call, below is proposed language for III. A and
Annex L.
III.A.
[to replace current first two bullets]
• A new separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI),
would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI.
SO: "IANA naming functions," this item was one of what I raised in my comment which Greg forwarded to client( unfortunately I did not get response on), I am unclear why that phrase is still maintained. The understanding i got was that PTI will be the new IANA operator post-transition so again how does the message above put that in context?
• ICANN would enter into a contract with PTI, granting PTI the
rights and obligations to serve as the IANA Functions Operator for the naming functions. This contract would also include service level agreements for the naming functions.
SO: Again this validates my comment above; is PTI no longer going to be IANA function operator but IANA *names* function operator? Are we trying to split the functions and divide IANA staff, funding, resources et all?
This seem unclear and can be complicated.
That said, I hope we are not too focused on legal possibilities at the expense of operational realities.
I rest my case.
Regards
Annex L:
Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
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.
SHARON FLANAGAN Partner
Sidley Austin LLP +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan@sidley.com
From: cwg-client-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Client Committee List for CWG
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:22 PM To: Client Committee Subject: [client com] FW: Notes CWG Meeting #42 on Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC
Client Committee — Here below are the notes from the call we just ended.
Timeline attached and also on the Wiki.
CWG Meeting #42 on Tuesday 21 April at 17:00 UTC
Agenda:
1. Opening Remarks
2. Open items on Draft Proposal 3.4
a. To be resolved by Design Teams?
b. To be resolved by CWG?
c. To be resolved during Public Comment?
3. Public Comment
a. Structure
b. Associated Communications
c. Role of CWG Members
4. Timeline
5. AOB
6. Closing Remarks
Notes:
1. Opening Remarks
· Last call before the launch of the Public Comment on the 2nd Draft Proposal.
· We've converged on one proposal for structure
· Today, we'd like to conclude on the last DTs and the outstandings items.
· Need dependencies for CCWG-Accountability to be clarified and noted
2. Open items on Draft Proposal 3.4
The following three items are "aide-memoire" to help think through open issues and how to address them.
a. To be resolved by Design Teams?
b. To be resolved by CWG?
c. To be resolved during Public Comment?
Section III starts on page 17
Going through Sidley comments
Change review period text to "every 5 years"
Page 22, section on IANA Function Review -- help with language from Sidley
Page 17, "ICANN to continue as IFO" -- help with language from Sidley
For DT-A, placeholder text needed because the DT is not complete: capture that significant work has been done to date, but not all are agreed. --> suggest general statement instead
Action (Alan): provide the text for point 4 (after CCWG-Acct meeting)
Action (Staff): do a thorough copyedit
Action (Sidley): propose language for Section III and Annex L
3. Public Comment
a. Structure
· As discussed in Istanbul, staff prepared a template for the comments to be submitted.
· The template will be presented in Word and PDF formats (the PDF will be fillable)
· Use of the template will be strongly encouraged, but not absolutely obligatory (free form comments are also accepted)
· The reason for using a template is to get concrete feedback and also to faciliate analysis and incorporation of feedback
· The template and the Proposal will be published in all ICANN supported languages
b. Associated Communications
· There will be a Chairs' Foreword/Summary
· There will be an updated version of the Xplane Handout presented in Istanbul
· The idea behind the two documents is that they each provide background and narrative on the CWG work process: the foreword/summary does this in a text form, and the XPlane handout provides a visual form.
c. Role of CWG Members
Please make sure that CWG Members ensure that their communities are aware of the comments, the suggested format, and the timeframe for comments.
4. Timeline
Will publish timeline to the list to save for time.
(attached here! :) )
5. AOB
6. Closing Remarks
****************************************************************************************************
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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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 <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Hi, A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed. avri
On 21 Apr 2015 23:O04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client@icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on today’s call, below is proposed language for III. A
and Annex L.
Annex L:
Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
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)
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a Cross Community Working Group to make specific recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR. These could include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This would would be according toa cross community working group chartered by the Board and its recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration. The cross community process would include the collection of community input and intermediate comment periods on the work, 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.
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for a separation process should be chartered by the Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether the Separation process CWG 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. http://www.avast.com
Avri, My personal view is that I am not yet convinced by the need for or perhaps do not adequately understand the need for the extra (CWG) step. However, as I understand your current wording, it seems to be a discretionary step that the IFR may choose to recommend to use or not. Therefore, since it is therefore not "baked in" , I do not have major reservations. Thanks, Jonathan From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 22 April 2015 15:19 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Hi, A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed. avri On 21 Apr 2015 23:O04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on today's call, below is proposed language for III. A and
Annex L.
Annex L:
Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
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)
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a Cross Community Working Group to make specific recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR. These could include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This would would be according toa cross community working group chartered by the Board and its recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration. The cross community process would include the collection of community input and intermediate comment periods on the work, 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.
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for a separation process should be chartered by the Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether the Separation process CWG recommendation for separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team. _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
Hi, Do you mean that the IFR should also do any necessary RFP &c.? avri On 22-Apr-15 11:07, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
My personal view is that I am not yet convinced by the need for or perhaps do not adequately understand the need for the extra (CWG) step.
However, as I understand your current wording, it seems to be a discretionary step that the IFR may choose to recommend to use or not.
Therefore, since it is therefore not “baked in” , I do not have major reservations.
Thanks,
Jonathan
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* 22 April 2015 15:19 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts
Hi,
A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed.
avri
On 21 Apr 2015 23:O04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client@icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on today’s call, below is proposed language for III. A
and Annex L.
Annex L:
Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
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)
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a Cross Community Working Group to make specific recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR. These could include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This would would be according toa cross community working group chartered by the Board and its recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration. The cross community process would include the collection of community input and intermediate comment periods on the work, 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.
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for a separation process should be chartered by the Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether the Separation process CWG recommendation for separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Avri, Yes, I suppose that is the implication i.e. if the additional work is not done by the CWG then it would need to be sufficiently specified and scoped in the recommendations of the IFR group. Thanks, Jonathan From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 22 April 2015 16:13 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Hi, Do you mean that the IFR should also do any necessary RFP &c.? avri On 22-Apr-15 11:07, Jonathan Robinson wrote: Avri, My personal view is that I am not yet convinced by the need for or perhaps do not adequately understand the need for the extra (CWG) step. However, as I understand your current wording, it seems to be a discretionary step that the IFR may choose to recommend to use or not. Therefore, since it is therefore not "baked in" , I do not have major reservations. Thanks, Jonathan From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 22 April 2015 15:19 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Hi, A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed. avri On 21 Apr 2015 23:O04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on today's call, below is proposed language for III. A and
Annex L.
Annex L:
Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
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)
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a Cross Community Working Group to make specific recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR. These could include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This would would be according toa cross community working group chartered by the Board and its recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration. The cross community process would include the collection of community input and intermediate comment periods on the work, 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.
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for a separation process should be chartered by the Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether the Separation process CWG recommendation for separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team. _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
Hi, perhaps we need a footnote asking this question. for example: There is an open question for comment on whether the recommendation of the IFR for the initiation of Separation discussion should be carried out by the IFR itself or should be assigned to a CWG as indicated in this section. Note: all of this conversation on it has convinced me, have not checked with other till now, that Section L and the reference to it in the main doc should be Separation review not mechanism. though that does not seem right either becasue it would do more than review, though it might not go as far as RFP. IFR Follow-up Team? I don't know. avri On 22-Apr-15 12:04, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
Yes, I suppose that is the implication i.e. if the additional work is not done by the CWG then it would need to be sufficiently specified and scoped in the recommendations of the IFR group.
Thanks,
Jonathan
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* 22 April 2015 16:13 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts
Hi,
Do you mean that the IFR should also do any necessary RFP &c.?
avri
On 22-Apr-15 11:07, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Avri,
My personal view is that I am not yet convinced by the need for or perhaps do not adequately understand the need for the extra (CWG) step.
However, as I understand your current wording, it seems to be a discretionary step that the IFR may choose to recommend to use or not.
Therefore, since it is therefore not “baked in” , I do not have major reservations.
Thanks,
Jonathan
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* 22 April 2015 15:19 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts
Hi,
A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed.
avri
On 21 Apr 2015 23:O04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client@icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Following up on today’s call, below is proposed language for III. A and Annex L. >
> Annex L: > > > > Triggers for the Separation Mechanism > > 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)
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a Cross Community Working Group to make specific recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR. These could include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This would would be according toa cross community working group chartered by the Board and its recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration. The cross community process would include the collection of community input and intermediate comment periods on the work, 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.
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for a separation process should be chartered by the Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether the Separation process CWG recommendation for separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Avri's footnote suggestion seems okay to me. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 1:25 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Hi, perhaps we need a footnote asking this question. for example: There is an open question for comment on whether the recommendation of the IFR for the initiation of Separation discussion should be carried out by the IFR itself or should be assigned to a CWG as indicated in this section. Note: all of this conversation on it has convinced me, have not checked with other till now, that Section L and the reference to it in the main doc should be Separation review not mechanism. though that does not seem right either becasue it would do more than review, though it might not go as far as RFP. IFR Follow-up Team? I don't know. avri On 22-Apr-15 12:04, Jonathan Robinson wrote: Avri, Yes, I suppose that is the implication i.e. if the additional work is not done by the CWG then it would need to be sufficiently specified and scoped in the recommendations of the IFR group. Thanks, Jonathan From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 22 April 2015 16:13 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Hi, Do you mean that the IFR should also do any necessary RFP &c.? avri On 22-Apr-15 11:07, Jonathan Robinson wrote: Avri, My personal view is that I am not yet convinced by the need for or perhaps do not adequately understand the need for the extra (CWG) step. However, as I understand your current wording, it seems to be a discretionary step that the IFR may choose to recommend to use or not. Therefore, since it is therefore not "baked in" , I do not have major reservations. Thanks, Jonathan From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 22 April 2015 15:19 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Hi, A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed. avri On 21 Apr 2015 23:O04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on today's call, below is proposed language for III. A and Annex L.
Annex L:
Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
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)
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a Cross Community Working Group to make specific recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR. These could include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This would would be according toa cross community working group chartered by the Board and its recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration. The cross community process would include the collection of community input and intermediate comment periods on the work, 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.
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for a separation process should be chartered by the Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether the Separation process CWG recommendation for separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team. ________________________________ [Avast logo]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship ________________________________ [Avast logo]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship ________________________________ [Avast logo]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/>
I agree that the footnote idea seems reasonable and also that the sue of Separation Mechanism is not ideal terminology. Jonathan From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 22 April 2015 19:00 To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Avri's footnote suggestion seems okay to me. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 1:25 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Hi, perhaps we need a footnote asking this question. for example: There is an open question for comment on whether the recommendation of the IFR for the initiation of Separation discussion should be carried out by the IFR itself or should be assigned to a CWG as indicated in this section. Note: all of this conversation on it has convinced me, have not checked with other till now, that Section L and the reference to it in the main doc should be Separation review not mechanism. though that does not seem right either becasue it would do more than review, though it might not go as far as RFP. IFR Follow-up Team? I don't know. avri On 22-Apr-15 12:04, Jonathan Robinson wrote: Avri, Yes, I suppose that is the implication i.e. if the additional work is not done by the CWG then it would need to be sufficiently specified and scoped in the recommendations of the IFR group. Thanks, Jonathan From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 22 April 2015 16:13 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Hi, Do you mean that the IFR should also do any necessary RFP &c.? avri On 22-Apr-15 11:07, Jonathan Robinson wrote: Avri, My personal view is that I am not yet convinced by the need for or perhaps do not adequately understand the need for the extra (CWG) step. However, as I understand your current wording, it seems to be a discretionary step that the IFR may choose to recommend to use or not. Therefore, since it is therefore not "baked in" , I do not have major reservations. Thanks, Jonathan From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 22 April 2015 15:19 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Hi, A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed. avri On 21 Apr 2015 23:O04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on today's call, below is proposed language for III. A and
Annex L.
Annex L:
Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
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)
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a Cross Community Working Group to make specific recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR. These could include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This would would be according toa cross community working group chartered by the Board and its recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration. The cross community process would include the collection of community input and intermediate comment periods on the work, 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.
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for a separation process should be chartered by the Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether the Separation process CWG recommendation for separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team. _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
Avri, I don't understand why the Board would charter the CCWG. Why wouldn't the community do that? It seems strange to me that the Board would charter a group to investigate the possibility of ICANN losing the IANA functions. Maybe I am missing something here. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 10:19 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Hi, A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed. avri On 21 Apr 2015 23:O04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on today's call, below is proposed language for III. A and Annex L.
Annex L:
Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
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)
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a Cross Community Working Group to make specific recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR. These could include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This would would be according toa cross community working group chartered by the Board and its recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration. The cross community process would include the collection of community input and intermediate comment periods on the work, 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.
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for a separation process should be chartered by the Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether the Separation process CWG recommendation for separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team. ________________________________ [Avast logo]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/>
Hi, On 22-Apr-15 14:26, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Avri,
I don’t understand why the Board would charter the CCWG. Why wouldn’t the community do that? It seems strange to me that the Board would charter a group to investigate the possibility of ICANN losing the IANA functions. Maybe I am missing something here.
For me it was the simplicity of sequence: - IFR make recommendation for a separation review team - Board after community comment agrees - accountability escalation if necessary - Board charters the CWG to do that review and come back with the answer. the entire community works together. I had greater problem with sequence - IFR make recommendation for a separation review team - Board after community comment (or haveing it arm metaphorically twisted) agrees - accountability escalation if necessary - Board asks SOAC to form a CWG. at which point I had hard questions to answer: - do they all decide in their own time and according to their own inclination if and how to do this - do they decide on whether they even want to explore the question the IFR recommended. - what about the SOAC that isn't convinced, can they black ball the process by refusing to take part? - do all the SOAC have to be involved? Just gNSO & ccNSO? - if they don't get around to it, what happens? Can it be pocket vetoed? - ... So I recommended the easier more direct path, especially since this would be a follow on to a recommendation made by one of the AOC like review processes. Was waiting for it to be challenged, and you have. avri
Chuck
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria *Sent:* Wednesday, April 22, 2015 10:19 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts
Hi,
A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed.
avri
On 21 Apr 2015 23:O04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client@icann.org <mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on today’s call, below is proposed language for III. A
and Annex L.
Annex L:
Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
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)
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a Cross Community Working Group to make specific recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR. These could include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This would would be according toa cross community working group chartered by the Board and its recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration. The cross community process would include the collection of community input and intermediate comment periods on the work, 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.
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for a separation process should be chartered by the Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether the Separation process CWG recommendation for separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
The process you describe Avri seems right. I just think the community should charter the CCWG, not the Board. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 3:13 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Hi, On 22-Apr-15 14:26, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Avri, I don't understand why the Board would charter the CCWG. Why wouldn't the community do that? It seems strange to me that the Board would charter a group to investigate the possibility of ICANN losing the IANA functions. Maybe I am missing something here. For me it was the simplicity of sequence: - IFR make recommendation for a separation review team - Board after community comment agrees - accountability escalation if necessary - Board charters the CWG to do that review and come back with the answer. the entire community works together. I had greater problem with sequence - IFR make recommendation for a separation review team - Board after community comment (or haveing it arm metaphorically twisted) agrees - accountability escalation if necessary - Board asks SOAC to form a CWG. at which point I had hard questions to answer: - do they all decide in their own time and according to their own inclination if and how to do this - do they decide on whether they even want to explore the question the IFR recommended. - what about the SOAC that isn't convinced, can they black ball the process by refusing to take part? - do all the SOAC have to be involved? Just gNSO & ccNSO? - if they don't get around to it, what happens? Can it be pocket vetoed? - ... So I recommended the easier more direct path, especially since this would be a follow on to a recommendation made by one of the AOC like review processes. Was waiting for it to be challenged, and you have. avri Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 10:19 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Hi, A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed. avri On 21 Apr 2015 23:O04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on today's call, below is proposed language for III. A and Annex L.
Annex L:
Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
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)
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a Cross Community Working Group to make specific recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR. These could include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This would would be according toa cross community working group chartered by the Board and its recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration. The cross community process would include the collection of community input and intermediate comment periods on the work, 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.
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for a separation process should be chartered by the Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether the Separation process CWG recommendation for separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team. ________________________________ [Avast logo]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/> ________________________________ [Avast logo]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/>
Chuck In reality ICANN is not losing the IANA functions but reassigning it to a different entity. -ed Please pardon anerrors. I am sending this from my IPhone and have big fingers.
On Apr 22, 2015, at 2:26 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Avri,
I don’t understand why the Board would charter the CCWG. Why wouldn’t the community do that? It seems strange to me that the Board would charter a group to investigate the possibility of ICANN losing the IANA functions. Maybe I am missing something here.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 10:19 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts
Hi,
A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed.
avri
On 21 Apr 2015 23:O04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on today’s call, below is proposed language for III. A and Annex L.
Annex L:
Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
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)
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a Cross Community Working Group to make specific recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR. These could include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This would would be according toa cross community working group chartered by the Board and its recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration. The cross community process would include the collection of community input and intermediate comment periods on the work, 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.
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for a separation process should be chartered by the Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether the Separation process CWG 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. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I understand that Eduardo but I don’t see how that relates to my question. I still think the community should charter the CCWG. Chuck From: Eduardo Diaz, PE [mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 3:28 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Chuck In reality ICANN is not losing the IANA functions but reassigning it to a different entity. -ed Please pardon anerrors. I am sending this from my IPhone and have big fingers. On Apr 22, 2015, at 2:26 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Avri, I don’t understand why the Board would charter the CCWG. Why wouldn’t the community do that? It seems strange to me that the Board would charter a group to investigate the possibility of ICANN losing the IANA functions. Maybe I am missing something here. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 10:19 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts Hi, A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed. avri On 21 Apr 2015 23:O04, "Client Committee List for CWG" <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on today’s call, below is proposed language for III. A and Annex L.
Annex L:
Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
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)
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a Cross Community Working Group to make specific recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR. These could include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This would would be according toa cross community working group chartered by the Board and its recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration. The cross community process would include the collection of community input and intermediate comment periods on the work, 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.
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for a separation process should be chartered by the Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether the Separation process CWG recommendation for separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team. ________________________________ [Avast logo]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Chuck: My mistake. It is hard to follow the various threads. -ed On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I understand that Eduardo but I don’t see how that relates to my question. I still think the community should charter the CCWG.
Chuck
*From:* Eduardo Diaz, PE [mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, April 22, 2015 3:28 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts
Chuck
In reality ICANN is not losing the IANA functions but reassigning it to a different entity.
-ed
Please pardon anerrors. I am sending this from my IPhone and have big fingers.
On Apr 22, 2015, at 2:26 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Avri,
I don’t understand why the Board would charter the CCWG. Why wouldn’t the community do that? It seems strange to me that the Board would charter a group to investigate the possibility of ICANN losing the IANA functions. Maybe I am missing something here.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria *Sent:* Wednesday, April 22, 2015 10:19 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Meeting #42: Sidley Proposed Inserts
Hi,
A suggested rewording that includes the steps I think were missed.
avri
On 21 Apr 2015 23:O04, "Client Committee List for CWG" < cwg-client@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Following up on today’s call, below is proposed language for III. A and
Annex L.
Annex L:
Triggers for the Separation Mechanism
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)
An outcome of an IANA Function Review could include a recommendation to initiate a Cross Community Working Group to make specific recommends that deal with recommendation made by the IFR. These could include the creation of an RFP and separation of the IANA Functions Operator. This would would be according toa cross community working group chartered by the Board and its recommendation would be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration. The cross community process would include the collection of community input and intermediate comment periods on the work, 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.
(1) A point for public comment is whether the IANA Function Review recommendation for a separation process should be chartered by the Board or by the SOAC and whether the recommendations should first be submitted to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for their approval before escalation to the ICANN Board. Or whether the Separation process CWG recommendation for separation should be submitted directly to the ICANN Board by the IANA Function Review Team.
------------------------------
[image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Hi, 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. http://www.avast.com
Hi, A rough parallel I have in mind. In US capital cases, there is first a trial to decide on what happened. this is the IFR. and then, if necessary, there is another whole trial to figure out what to do about it. This is the separation mechanism (which may not be properly named). avri On 22-Apr-15 07:06, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
participants (8)
-
Avri Doria -
Eduardo Diaz -
Eduardo Diaz, PE
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Robinson -
Konstantinos Komaitis -
Seun Ojedeji