[CWG-RFP3] Strawman Proposal 4

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I am not a lawyer, so any repsonse I give is suspect.

In any case, Trusts are you say very varied over jurisdictions.  The
have existed forever, from what I read (not only wikipedia) since Roman
times or before.  In fact I think I remember reading about them in some
obscure Latin lesson half way through the last century.

In essence the way I understand them is that some who has an asset of
value, for example stewardship of the IANA contract, gives that item in
trust to an intermediary, the adminstrator, to hold and administer for
the trustee - the Internet community.

It is true I do not know the exact form of a Trust or Trust-like
arrangement that would work.  For that one would need someone who was an
expert in international trusts to determine what, if any, mix of
available trust elements could be brougth together to achieve the goal. 
I guess I have so much faith in lawyers that I believe that they can
create an appropriate piece of paper to create any sort of needed legal
arrangement;  in this case a trust to hold the IANA contract for  the
Global Internet Community.

What I am looking for is:

- a minimalist solution that changes what is necessary to account for
NTIA transfer of stewardship,  but does not try to solve every possible
complaint the contracted parties might have about IANA performance.

- a solution that allows full separability of IANA from ICANN, but which
does require that separation, especially not at this time. 

- a solution that does not build yet another entity for handling IANA
that is subject to the same growth dynamics as ICANN, which was created
for handling IANA. 

- a soltion that does not lead us in the slicing IANA into many little
ianas. (It is ironic that the IANA stewardship transition process may
result in the yet another form of Internet fragmentation)


In may ways I think we have confused the work in our exegisis of the
contract.  The primary  thing that is changing in terms of Stewardship
is who gets to decide that the contract should be either renewed or
awarded elsewhere.  That is what we should focus on.

That is why I am suggesting a Trust, or some other Trust-like legal
relationship, where the IANA contract is put in trust for the global 
Internet Community and there is a mechanism by which the
multistakeholder  community can be brought together when necessary for
critical decisions, like reviewing performance before making a contract
recommendation.

avri

On 14-Nov-14 05:35, Guru Acharya wrote:
> Hi Avri and Greg,
>
> This is with reference to the Strawman 4 added to the matrix:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kO8dtSdkTnH79FSUsxA8KmPv1O2IfYwYFm2k_CIoNMw/edit
>
> While I am familiar with how trusts operate in my country, I am not able to
> comprehend the use of trusts as done in Strawman 4. Maybe someone can help
> explain the nature of laws under which this proposal is being contemplated.
>
> As I understand, trusts are generally established between three legal
> entities: the author, trustee and the beneficiary.
>
> The person who reposes or declares the confidence is called the "author of
> the trust"; The person who accepts the confidence is called the "trustee";
> the person for whose benefit the confidence is accepted is called the
> "beneficiary".
>
> In Strawman 4, who are these entities?
>
> There is reference to a ICG like panel without any legal status - I suppose
> a committee within ICANN - is that the beneficiary? Who are you proposing
> the trustee be? Are you suggesting that that the trustee contract the IANA
> operator (ICANN) on behalf of the beneficiary (also ICANN)?
>
> I'm not able to see how all of this works - Maybe someone could help
> explain.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
> Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141116/e3bf5025/attachment.html>