<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>Hi Greg (and Paul),</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Isn’t this this simply the return of contract co ? And didn’t we in Istanbul decide to leave this further aside a it was quit clear that there was not much of support for it?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Maarten</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Client Committee List for CWG <<a href="mailto:cwg-client@icann.org">cwg-client@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Reply-To: </span>"<a href="mailto:cwg-client@icann.org">cwg-client@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:cwg-client@icann.org">cwg-client@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Tuesday 14 April 2015 07:41<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>>, Client <<a href="mailto:cwg-client@icann.org">cwg-client@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>[client com] The Reverse Hybrid Model<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Paul Kane among others has suggested a variation on the current "internal" models. Rather than quashing it, I thought it was proper to give it appropriate consideration. As Paul is traveling,
I thought I would put this together so that it could be given such consideration.
<br>
<br>
For the sake of convenience, I'm calling it the "Reverse Hybrid Model."<br>
<br>
In this model, ICANN would still be the source of the right to perform the IANA Functions, as in the current internal model. However, ICANN would enter into an irrevocable agreement with the Affiliate for the IANA Functions. Rather than having the right
to perform the IANA Functions itself, the Affiliate would be given the right to contract for an entity to act as IANA Functions Operator. (Thus, the Affiliate would be set up as a supervisor, not as an operator.) Initially (but not perpetually), that subcontracted
entity would be ICANN, the current IANA Functions Operator. However, the Affiliate would have the option, under the circumstances designated by the CWG, to separate the performance of the IANA Functions from ICANN (e.g., by issuing an RFP and enter into an
agreement with a third party).<br>
<br>
As with the current internal models, ICANN Corporate would be the only member of the Affiliate. The multi-stakeholder community would (s)elect the independent Board of the Affiliate, which would have a limited (and defined) scope.<br>
<br>
It may appear that ICANN is granting a right to itself, through the Affiliate. However, the key is that the Affiliate would have the oversight and stewardship responsibility over the IANA Functions, by exercising the rights and powers it has under the agreement
with the IANA Functions Operator. In other words, the Affiliate would be the contractor with oversight of ICANN-as-IANA Functions Operator, and would also have the right to exercise escalation rights, up to and including issuing an RFP and potentially a contract
to a third party if the designated triggers warranted it. The CSC and the PRT would be activities of the Affiliate, created by bylaws of the Affiliate, with a multistakeholder board providing oversight over the CSC and the PRT and ultimately over the IANA
Functions Operator (initially, ICANN-as-IANA). <br>
<br>
Under the irrevocable agreement, ICANN would retain "ownership" of the IANA Function Operator rights but the Affiliate would (irrevocably) hold the right to subcontract for the performance of those services. Although ICANN would be the only member, we would
need to insure that its rights as the member to override the Board were as limited as possible.<br>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
While this does not structurally separate the IANA Function operations from the rest of ICANN, it does separate the stewardship and the decision-making rights regarding the performance of the operations from ICANN. As with the second option under the current
hybrid proposal, there would be functional separation of the IANA Function operations from the rest of ICANN.
<br>
<br>
While structural separation of the IANA Functions operations does make a certain kind of future total separation easier (spinning off the current IANA Functions Operator within ICANN), this is really the less likely form of total separation. The more likely
form of total separation would be the selection of a new IANA Functions Operator, and that right would be structurally separated from ICANN.
<br>
<br>
More importantly from an operational perspective, the oversight and stewardship over the operations of the IANA Functions would be structurally separated from ICANN. It would be firmly in the CSC, the PRT and the multistakeholder board. This would be the
primary job of the Affiliate, putting service accountability front and center. Yet, it does not slight separability.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I believe this proposal has sufficient merit to warrant due consideration. One of the reasons we have engaged Sidley is so that we can understand the viability and desirability of various models
and mechanisms (and so I and other don't have to "play lawyer"). In that spirit, I am forwarding this model to both the CCWG and the Client Committee so that this "Reverse Hybrid" model can be appropriately considered.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Speak to you all in a few hours, as dawn rises over New York City.<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">
<div class="">
<div id=":27k" class="" tabindex="0"><img class="" src="https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif"></div>
</div>
<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
</font></span></div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Kind regards to both<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
Paul<br>
</font></span><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>