Hi Avri,

thanks for sharing this document, quite important to grasp the proposals in
table.
For NCSG public session in Singapore, I tried to allocate more time for
IANA stewardship transition and ICANN accountability. it is probably not
enough  and so indeed we need webinar(s)  in coming weeks
Thanks again for your work in CWG.

Best,

Rafik

2015-02-04 7:29 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>:

>  Hi,
>
> The enclosed is the discussion document for the IANA stewardship
> transition at the SIN meeting.
>
> At this point, while legal details are missing on the issues (you will
> notice how we are going out for legal opinions) it is probably a good time
> to start discussing the issues in the NCSG.  As the NCSG member on the
> transition team, at some point I will have to switch from arguing my own
> personal view, to arguing for an NCSG position.  That is something I won't
> be able to do until we have a had a serious NCSG discussion about it,
> mostly on on this list, but in various online and other meetings.
>
> While we do have a specific NCSG-IANA list, it is coming time to reach
> beyond that list to the membership.
>
> So please, take some time, ask questions and jump into the discussion.
> Please notice that the attachment outlines the 4 model under discussion.
> The models have similarity and all include the notion of separability: the
> ability to remove the IANA function from ICANN to another service provider
> if necessary, without an obligation for separation unless necessary.
>
> The models are:
>
> *External Contract Co* which is empowered to periodically hold an RFP for
> the IANA function
> *External Trust* which hold a the contract in trust and can, on
> instructions from a multistakeholder group decide to remove the function.
>
> *IANA Internal* with a nuclear option (sometime expressed as exploding
> bolts) if something goes serious wrong
> *Internal trust,* similar to external trust except that ICANN itself
> holds the trust.
>
> There are various NCSG members who have been participating in the CWG-IANA
> work and we have different personal views of which model is best - each of
> the models may have its champion among the NCSG participants.  I happen to
> support some form of the External Trust, but as I say will, if and when the
> time comes for a consensus call, support the model that appears to have
> NCSG consensus.  Once the discussion starts you will find that among those
> of us participating in the work, there are strong opinions that do not
> always agree.  but that is hardly surprising for our Stakeholder group.
>
> After the Singapore meeting I will be happy to hold as many
> teleconferences as necessary to give everyone who is interested in talking
> about this the chance to do so.
>
> Thanks
>
> avri
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------  Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG -
> Discussion document for Singapore (PDF Version)  Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015
> 21:18:24 -0000  From: Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]>
> <[log in to unmask]>  Reply-To: [log in to unmask]  Organization:
> Afilias  To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>  All,
>
>
>
> Please see attached for the final version of the CWG Discussion Document
> for Singapore. Thank-you to all who contributed to the preparation and
> refinement of the document.
>
>
>
> We believe that we now have an excellent document, prepared in good faith,
> that attempts to capture and summarise the considerable progress made by
> this group to date. Moreover, we hope that this, together with our other
> communication and interaction work, will provide the broader community with
> a solid base to understand the work of the CWG to-date and therefore, to
> effectively engage with us as we move ahead towards a proposal.
>
>
>
> We look forward to working with you over the next week or so on this
> important phase of our work and for those who are travelling to Singapore,
> safe travels and see you there.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan & Lise
>
> Co-chairs
>
>
>