You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 5 Next »

III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability Arrangements

This section should describe what changes your community is proposing to the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of the transition. If your community is proposing to replace one or more existing arrangements with new arrangements, that replacement should be explained and all of the elements listed in Section II.B should be described for the new arrangements. Your community should provide its rationale and justification for the new arrangements.

If your community’s proposal carries any implications for the interface between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A, those implications should be described here.

If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements listed in Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that choice should be provided here.

CWG requirement:

Name = CWG-RFP3

Dependency – CWG-RFP2B

Delivery = Week of November 10 (?)

Note1: members of this subgroup should be familiar with the NTIA IANA services contract, IANA’s DNS activities and the procedures of the GNSO or ccNSO.

Note 2: This sub-group may wish to further split the work load depending on the number of options (scenarios) it wishes to work on.

Volunteers:

  • James Gannon
  • Greg Shatan (GNSO)
  • Erick Iriarte (ccNSO)
  • Allan MacGillivray (ccNSO)
  • Mark Carvell (GAC)
  • Matthew Shears
  • Donna Austin (GNSO)
  • Paul Kane (ccTLD)
  • Stephanie Duchesneau (GNSO)
  • Kris Seeburn (GNSO)
  • Guru Acharya
  • Wanawit Ahkuputra (GAC)
  • Pitinan Kooarmornpatana (GAC)
  • Eduardo Diaz (ALAC)
  • Tracy Hackshaw (GAC)
  • Amr Elsadr (GNSO)

References:

  • No labels