[CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Greg,

again, did we ever consider an alternative to creating a corporation?
Kind regards,

Olivier

On 29/11/2014 00:32, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Olivier,
>
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the "configuration" of Contract
> Co.  We certainly have discussed the "form" the entity would take,
> i.e., a nonprofit corporation.  Place of incorporation has not been
> significantly discussed in recent days, though we had a number of
> email exchanges and some discussion of jurisdiction earlier in a
> variety of contexts.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 28/11/2014 16:36, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>      
>>
>>      
>>
>>     *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>>     <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
>>     [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
>>     *Bertrand de La Chapelle
>>
>>     Is the idea of a contract Co. a done deal? Establishing any
>>     organization with whatever limited staff is usually a recipe for
>>     its growth in time. 
>>
>>      
>>
>>     MM: The idea that there should be a contracting entity separate
>>     from ICANN is, I believe, a done deal. It reflects some of the
>>     principles we agreed on (such as separability) and the general
>>     agreement that, as the draft proposal says,
>>
>>     “The current arrangements provided by the NTIA for the oversight
>>     and accountability of the IANA Functions are generally
>>     satisfactory and the objective of the CWG is to replicate these
>>     as faithfully as possible”
>>
>
>     This is not at all how I understood it. The discussion on whether
>     the "contracting entity" should be a contract co. or something
>     else has never been touched - certainly no alternatives have been
>     seriously considered.
>
>>      
>>
>>     MM: On the other hand, whether the specific configuration of the
>>     Contract Co. is optimal for achieving those purposes could still
>>     be open. I would say is still open to _modification_; any
>>     modification that accomplishes the agreed objectives but avoids
>>     any problems that might arise would be welcomed by the CWG I imagine.
>>
>
>     The configuration of the Contract Co. has not been discussed
>     either. We know what functions should be undertaken and what broad
>     characteristics would be needed. No discussion of jurisdiction nor
>     configuration of the entity has been done except on RFP4 call
>     today where we started to touch on it.
>
>     Kind regards,
>
>     Olivier
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>     CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> *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 <mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>/*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> *
>
> */www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141129/49c1f158/attachment-0001.html>