[CWG-RFP3] Strawman Proposal 4

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello,

>From a personal view, this is where I was hoping we did soon arrive at. So
if we are able to figure out how to form an inclusive and legitimate trust
then fine, otherwise I'd say there is existing legitimate trust (close to
multistakeholder) that should be able to serve this purpose.

@Milton, I did agree with you that initially it would look like it's easier
to sperate the functions (especially on paper). However when you look at it
in years to come, you would realize the multiple monsters that would have
been created. Unfortunately some who are here may have retired by then and
it will be left to that generation to figure out. Just like the situation
we are finding ourselves right now with ICANN; I fear I may be part of that
generation and that's one of my motivations.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 16 Nov 2014 12:44, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>  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 listCwg-rfp3 at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a6a35fac/attachment.html>