[CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.

[Guru Acharya]

I'd also like to point out that while determining the jurisdiction of a new
company might be a tough policy decision to reach consensus on... On the
other hand reaching consensus on the jurisdiction of 1000+ contracts might
be even more difficult!

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Bertrand,
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle <
> bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Is the option of having separate complementary contracts by the different
>> users of the IANA functions off the table?
>>
>
> I don't think anything would be off the table yet.
>
> Can you explain a few details about this option?
>
> Are you suggesting that every registry have a separate contract with the
> IANA operator; and that if there is ever a need to change the IANA
> operator, every registry re-contracts the new IANA operator as collectively
> decided by the community?
>
> If I understand what you are suggesting correctly, I'm curious whether the
> ccTLDs would agree to having a direct contract with the IANA operator; and
> whether it increases the chances of fragmentation if a subset of the
> registries decide to contract someone else; and whether the transaction
> costs of multiple contracts would be lower than the transaction costs of
> maintaining a company with a single contract?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141127/d85c6123/attachment.html>