If I understand the latest charter of the CSC, it would not trigger reviews but would instead escalate to the ccNSO or GNSO. Is my understanding incorrect? Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 1:35 PM To: lisefuhrforwader; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Structure and comments from Sidley Austin - Periodic Reviews Reviewing the text with edits from Sidley I saw on pp48-9 (What should trigger reviews? In annex D) that "although a super-majority of the CSC may also be able trigger an "off-cycle" Periodic Review Function if necessary to ensure satisfactory performance." Given the small number of members proposed for the CSC, I am not sure this is meaningful! The DT-C work suggested an escalation to the ccNSO and GNSO for a decision - which would not be unreasonable given their role in organising the periodic reviews) - and a supermajority of the relevant councils makes a lot more sense. Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: 20 April 2015 13:50 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Structure and comments from Sidley Austin Dear All, Please be aware of the following documents from Sidley Austin. 1. The structural model diagram 2. Summary of Legal Structure 3. CWG - Draft Transition Proposal (Sidley Comments) Best regards, Lise

As happens on projects with parallel efforts, those efforts from time to time become somewhat divergent in spots and must be realigned. This is one of those times. I would not say that this role for the ccNSO/GNSO is settled either, but we have moved beyond a self-triggering CSC. Greg On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> wrote:

Chuck, your understanding is correct.

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Monday, 20 April 2015 4:49 PM *To:* Martin Boyle; lisefuhrforwader; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Structure and comments from Sidley Austin - Periodic Reviews

If I understand the latest charter of the CSC, it would not trigger reviews but would instead escalate to the ccNSO or GNSO. Is my understanding incorrect?

Chuck

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Martin Boyle *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 1:35 PM *To:* lisefuhrforwader; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Structure and comments from Sidley Austin - Periodic Reviews

Reviewing the text with edits from Sidley I saw on pp48-9 (What should trigger reviews? In annex D) that “although a super-majority of the CSC may also be able trigger an “off-cycle” Periodic Review Function if necessary to ensure satisfactory performance.” Given the small number of members proposed for the CSC, I am not sure this is meaningful! The DT-C work suggested an escalation to the ccNSO and GNSO for a decision – which would not be unreasonable given their role in organising the periodic reviews) – and a supermajority of the relevant councils makes a lot more sense.

Martin

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Lise Fuhr *Sent:* 20 April 2015 13:50 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Structure and comments from Sidley Austin

Dear All,

Please be aware of the following documents from Sidley Austin.

1. The structural model diagram

2. Summary of Legal Structure

3. CWG - Draft Transition Proposal (Sidley Comments)

Best regards,

Lise

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship