[client com] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial Discussion Draft on Transition Models

[Greg Shatan]

Response to email just sent.

Greg
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
Date: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial Discussion Draft on Transition Models
To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk>
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>


 Seun



A quick observation; the legal separation option does not seem to include
advantages/disadvantages like the functional separation.

MM: Actually it does. The discussion draft makes it clear that the legal
separation is used as the benchmark, and then compared to functional
separation. Thus, the “advantages” of functional separation are the
“disadvantages” of legal separation, and the “disadvantages” of functional
separation are the “advantages” of legal separation.

After reviewing these pros and cons, I think the only substantive advantage
of functional separation is this one:

“Avoids the need to create another layer of governance and accountability
at the IANA level and associated complexity; the focus can be on ICANN
governance and accountability.”

But this alleged advantage is a mirage. It would be nice to avoid
governance problems. But of course, the easiest way to avoid complexity and
governance would be to have no accountability at all.

This ‘disadvantage’ of legal separation is really its chief advantage. The
reforms of ICANN governance and accountability that come from the CCWG will
be reforms oriented to its policy making process, not IANA operations.
ICANN is dominated by the policy making process for domain names and the
administration of its contracts with registries and registrars – it
accounts for 95% of its budget. IANA is a tiny part of ICANN’s overall
enterprise. Internal reforms of ICANN governance and accountability are
going to be focused on making sure that the policies passed by the board
reflect the preferences of its stakeholder groups. Unless there are
governance and accountability reforms _*specifically targeting IANA
operations*_ the general ICANN CCWG process will do nothing for IANA. And
if those specific governance and accountability reforms for IANA are put
into place in an internal solution – voila – you have the same additional
“complexity” and additional layers of governance that you have in the legal
separation. So there is really no gain in simplicity from an internal
option.

Let’s bite the bullet and do it right. Legal separation is a requirement.

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




-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20150407/3e790980/attachment-0001.html>