[CWG-RFP3] Strawman Proposal 4

[Avri Doria]

Hi,


On 18-Nov-14 12:07, Avri Doria wrote:
> I admit that is is still an alternative in formation and can use the
> input of many wise people.

DId a bit more research today and talked to a lawyer here in Geneva who
had done some international Trust and Trust like work.  I was informed
that what I am looking for is probably not a Trust proper, but that a
Trust like legal entity could indeed be created.  There are many
jurisdictions that have versatile enough laws to create such a legal
instrument.

The trust-like arrangement, the IANA Stewardship Function (ISF for want
of a better name) would be defined as part of the Transition process

The point involves defining the exact work that the Adminstrator, call
it the IANA Stewardship Administrator (ISA for want of a better name)
would be authorized to do.  Such as:

- Order the audits
- publish the information for the audits
- set up an clerical function for the confirmation of the process of a
verifying a root entry ((though it is possible this task could be folded
into the IANA function))
    - supervise the work of the clerical function
- effect and manage a contract/mou for the IANA function(s)

The rest of the legal work requires defining a set of triggers for
calling up the ICG-like Council, call it the IANA Stewardship Council (
ISC for want of a better name) that is empowered to make decisions.

- calling the ISC for review and renewal/reassignment of a 4-7 year
contract (timers) 
- define a set of emergency/interrupt events that warrants calling up
the ISC (interrupts)

The legal work would also include defining the shape of the ISC, for
example which stakeholder communities were entitled to name how many
people to the ISC

- These communities would be required to have their own procedures for
identifying their representaitved on the ISC in a timely manner.  They
could appoint the same person time after time or define new people on
some periodic basis.  These stakeholder groups would have full bottom-up
authority to define their reps as they saw fit.

- the ISC would be called up for a specific tasks and for a bounded
time, but would then be dissolved. This step is necessary in order to
avoid the temptation for scope creep.  A permanent sitting ISC will
often find it necessary to define new and exciting tasks to warrant
their continued presence and importance.

The scope of the ISA and ISC would be limited by a Terms of Reference
ToR defined during the transition and built into its foundational charter. 

Every 14 years the ISC would be assembled with the power to redefine the
ToR as necessary.  Any changes to the ToR would need to be approved by
all of the stakeholder groups.  At this time the members of the ISC
would be able to add other Stakeholder groups or make other similar
changes to the agreement.

In the case that 2/3 of the Stakeholder communities comprising the ISC
felt that there was a crisis, this could trigger calling up an ISC. 

The ISC would be entitled to replace the Administrator at any of its
meetings

Once the CWG-Stewardship documents are reopened these details and others
can be added to Strawman 4.

I hope the extra bit of flesh helps in consideration of this option at
the meeting.

avri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141118/43929793/attachment.html>