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

[Greg Shatan]

Please use this version, which doesn't include my half-written note
interjected in the middle.

Greg


*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/>*

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial Discussion Draft on Transition Models
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>, Client <
cwg-client at icann.org>


Andrew,

I'm copying your email to the Client Committee email list for consideration
by Sidley and the Client Committee.

Greg Shatan

*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/>*

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 11:04:14AM +0200, Lise Fuhr wrote:
> > Please see the attached initial discussion draft of the two models from
> our legal counsel.
>
> Thanks for this.  I've read it.  I have some questions.  Questions for
> Sidley are listed, and then some observations for our own discussion
> (which needn't take up Sidley's time) follow when appropriate in
> square brackets.
>
> In I.A, particularly in numbers 4 and 6, I can't tell whether the
> assumption is that there are new agreements between PTI and the RIRs,
> and PTI and IETF.  I think the fact that PTI is a new legal entity
> means that new agreements would be required.  Is that correct?  [The
> reason I ask this is because there is a possible risk of things coming
> apart if the other operational communities need to be engaged in a new
> negotiation.  If PTI just takes the existing agreements and does a
> global search and replace for ICANN with PTI, that's nice, but it
> doesn't solve everything.  For instance, the IETF would have to
> publish a new version of RFC 2860.  It's worth remembering that every
> grievance everyone has with an existing document comes into play once
> the document is opened for editing.]
>

​

> By way of comparison, in II.B, does using Functional Separation permit
> ICANN to continue working under its existing MoUs?  I'd assume yes,
> because AFAIK none of the existing agreements specify the internal
> arrangements of how ICANN delivers the service.  [Notwithstanding
> Milton's point about getting it "right", given the timeline there is a
> significant advantage to not having to negotiate, I think, no?]
>
> III.C talks about CSC.  In the case of a full legal separation with
> independent governance, would the CSC be needed at all?  Presumably
> the arrangements between PRI and their customers would be a
> contractual one, and as such the management of such contractual
> disputes ought to be via those contracts, and not through an extra
> body.  Or is the point that the way such a contractual arrangement
> would solve such disputes ought to be along the lines of the CSC?
>
> In III.D.2 there is a question about "ultimate accountability over
> ICANN's stewardhip".  I'm not entirely sure which cases this applies
> to.  If there is a legal separation, how is this question relevant for
> CWG?  Under the legal separation described, PTI becomes the new IANA
> functions operator.  If there's full independent governance of PTI,
> for instance, isn't ICANN's stewardship completely gone -- it has only
> responsibility for policy, and not for IANA operation at all, right?
> Is that part of the point of this question?
>
> On III.I, I'm not sure what the difference is between CSC and IRP.
> Why are both things needed?
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20150408/345cc266/attachment.html>