As one of the people on the CWG I suppose I’ll put myself out there for any assistance needed.

Happy to answer any questions on some of the technical side of the proposal or anything that I feel I can give an educated response to.

-James



From: Rafik Dammak

Reply-To: Rafik Dammak

Date: Tuesday 28 April 2015 11:41

To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>"

Subject: [Important] Public Comments on IANA proposal





Hi.



It is definitely a report we have to comment in this critical process. We need volunteer(s) to coordinate taking inputs and comments from members. Everyone is encouraged to read the report and check the recording of webinar held next week, to get an idea about the content .we will continue the discussion in the list and also ad-hoc calls.



The CWG is suggesting a template for the comment https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-stewardship-input-template-doc-22apr15-en.doc and  we should follow it.

People can volunteer to cover part(s)  or area(s)  in the report and focus on. The coordinator will consolidate all the comments in one place e.g. etherpad . We need to review that draft later to get it approved and/or edited, and the submitted．



We have several active  members in the CWG who can give guidance and support  but we need others  to participate and share the workload . We have ongoing discussion in this thread and it ia already a good starter. Please volunteer, we have to make it!



For reference : https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en



Best,



Rafik Dammak

NCSG chair

Dear NCSG-ers:



The domain names part of the IANA transition is finally being formed. A draft proposal was released yesterday and it is open for public comment.



In my view, this is a big win for accountability. By legally separating the IANA functions operator from ICANN, it will be easier to hold ICANN’s board and staff accountable for the policy making process, and easier to hold the post-transition IANA accountable for its performance of the IANA functions. Lines of responsibility will be more direct, and policy more clearly separated from implementation.



The proposal also promotes accountability by creating a periodic review process that could allow the names community to “fire” the existing IANA if there was great dissatisfaction with its performance. This enhances the accountability sought by the numbers and protocols communities as well as creating separability for the names community for the first time.



The legal affiliate structure seems to have found the middle ground in the debate over ICANN’s role in the IANA functions. Although IANA will still be a subsidiary of ICANN, Inc., thus defusing any concerns about creating new organizations, it will have a separate board and a clearer line of demarcation between the politics of ICANN the policy maker and the technical coordination functions provided by the IANA functions operator.



You can read the (very long) proposal here:



https ://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en>



You can comment on it here:





https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en