[client com] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal

Tue Apr 21 06:17:21 UTC 2015

Sidley Team,

Here is one fairly straight-forward comment from our co-Chairs in response
to your structure document.  I don't know if this requires any response
from you, but feel free to respond if you would like.  It can also be read
in conjunction with other comments I have sent.

Greg
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
Date: Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:00 AM
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal
Structure for CWG Proposal
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org

All,

Having been through the thread following release of the “Draft: Summary of
Legal Structure for CWG Proposal”, we wanted to highlight a few key points
reflecting our understanding and agreement or disagreement with comments.

First, overall it seems to be a succinct and effective summary of where we
have arrived at. This includes capturing the critical CCWG dependencies
including the requirement for one or more “fundamental bylaws”.

As far as the Affiliate is concerned, it is our understanding that this is
the model we have delicately moved towards through a process of provisional
elimination during our meetings, including the two intensive work days with
dedicated sessions on “structure”. In other words, provided this model does
not prove to be fundamentally flawed as we scrutinise and develop it in
cooperation with our legal advisors, it is the likely outcome of the work
of the CWG.

As far as compatibility with the other (numbers and protocols) proposals to
the ICG and associated arrangements, we do not presume anything about the
other proposals or future arrangements. Save for the fact that we have
sought to be aware of them and therefore be sensitive to the need (for the
ICG) to ultimately integrate these with the names proposal from this group.
We are not currently aware of any overarching incompatibility or issue that
will mean the three proposals cannot be integrated and ultimately this will
be up to the ICG to work on in conjunction with the proposing communities.
That said, we believe that we (co-chairs) have made it clear that we are
very receptive to and willing to engage with anyone including the core
teams behind the other two proposals to the ICG for information or any
other relevant purpose.

Thank-you,

Jonathan & Lise

*From:* James Gannon [mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net]
*Sent:* 20 April 2015 08:31
*To:* Greg Shatan; Avri Doria

*Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal
Structure for CWG Proposal

I agree with Avri and Greg, I haven’t seen any move away from an affiliate,
quite the opposite, my personal impression has been that there is
increasing support for it as we flesh out some of the details.

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>]
*On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
*Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 5:15 AM
*To:* Avri Doria
*Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal
Structure for CWG Proposal

I agree with Avri.  It is certainly not my impression that people are
leaning away from an affiliate.

I would also say that, if both parties to the MoU agree that ICANN can
assign it to an affiliate, there should be no real issues with doing so.
Alternately, the parties could agree that ICANN will provide the services
via an affiliate, while keeping ICANN as the contractual party.  In other
words, this is basically a non-issue.

Greg

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

On 19-Apr-15 19:03, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

and because people seemed to be leaning away

from an affiliate anyway

I had not gotten that impression.  It is still the compromise point between
an Internal and Contract Co ( still waiting in the background in the event
there is no compromise, I expect).  I thought it was still very much in the
mix.

avri

------------------------------

[image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

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

_______________________________________________
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/20150421/ffd216d9/attachment-0001.html>