[CWG-RFP3] Clean and Marked Versions of Latest Draft of RFP3

[Holly Raiche]

Thanks Greg

I am all too aware of the need for the existence of a legal entity if a contract is to be entered into.  (one of the things I do is teach law) So my question has always been about the need for a contract, not for the need for a legal entity if there is to be a contract.  At this stage, there already is a legal entity that will necessarily survive the transition - ICANN - with all of its powers to contract, be sued, etc.  And yes, what the NTIA has done is contract with parties for functions to be performed - again, the three functions which we all know.  My understanding of the proposed Contract Co was that it provides the oversight role - and arguably, ICANN would not contract with itself to oversight itself (the mere typing of  that shows its silliness). So is THAT the role that Contract Co is needed for?

Holly
On 1 Dec 2014, at 11:13 am, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Holly, 
> 
> If there's going to be a contract, there needs to be a legal entity that has the capacity to enter into that contract.  This is one of the roles that NTIA currently performs. We spent a number of hours in Frankfurt carefully identifying each role that NTIA currently performs.  I have not seen a proposal without a contract and without a contracting entity that demonstrates how these roles will be replaced.
> 
> Furthermore, while Contract Co. may be lightweight, much of the work that the MRT performs cannot be performed unless it is empowered by Contract Co.  So the MRT cannot exist without being delegated certain powers from Contract Co.
> 
> Finally, any planning process is by necessity iterative.  The CWG will be working (and continuing to work) to improve, refine and add detail to the proposal, and by definition, an impetus for those improvements are questions and "stress tests."  It's only to be expected.  
> 
> Greg
> 
> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:
> First - a big thank you for the work everyone has done.
> 
> I still have questions - much the same as Alan has voiced so well.  My basic question is with the statement up front that reads:
> 
> ·      As such, the objective of the CWG is largely to replicate the roles played by the NTIA in the execution and oversight of the IANA Naming Functions as faithfully as possible, while acknowledging that certain changes will be required to contractual terms and arrangements that are particular to contracts entered into with the U.S. government.
> 
> AWhat seems to be included in the ‘roles’ is that of a contracting party.  And my question remains as to the need for a Contract Co. particularly since what is envisaged is a mere skeleton of a company, with the main work done by the MRT. I appreciate the view that there needs to be something in place - a fail safe mechanism of some sort - to deal with the sort of stress tests that Bertrand emailed to us all. I’m not convinced, however, that the mechanism is necessarily another corporate entity.  If Alan’s serious questions can be answered, then I’m sure there will be support for the  proposal.
> 
> Holly
> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1 Dec 2014, at 9:28 am, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> All:
>> 
>> Attached are clean and marked versions of the latest draft of the response to RFP3, showing changes to the RFP3 section of Version 1.6 of the Response, circulated before Thursday's CWG call.
>> 
>> As you will see, most of the changes are not substantive, but rather improve the wording, clarity, and formatting of the prior draft. You will also see that a number of changes are directly responsive to comments made on Thursday's call and thereafter by email.
>> 
>> Please review the attached.  If you see any further improvements or refinements that can be made to this document, please provide them by reply email.  These should be supplied by marking up the clean version of the document using track changes.  The deadline for all changes is 20:00 UTC on Monday, December 1.
>> 
>> Thank you for all your contributions and hard work.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Greg Shatan
>> 
>> 
>> <CWG-Dec01PublicConsult-RFP3-CleanDraftFinal_GS.docx><Comparison RFP3 from V 16 to Current RFP3 Draft.docx>_______________________________________________
>> Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
>> Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab
> 666 Third Avenue ï 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
> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com 
> www.lawabel.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141201/f75b4262/attachment-0001.html>