[CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.

[Alan Greenberg]

In Frankfurt we used the term "entity" as if it 
was something other than some for of company or 
corporation. We have now replaced it with 
"corporation". Others assure me that a 
corporation is possible with no Board or members 
or owners or shareholders or officers or bank 
account, but I have yet to fully understand how this works.

I will be addressing some of this in my comments, hopefully later tonight.

Alan

At 28/11/2014 06:32 PM, 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 <<mailto:ocl at gih.com>ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>
>On 28/11/2014 16:36, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: 
>><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>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
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>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
>
><mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>gsshatan at lawabel.com
>
>ICANN-related: <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>www.lawabel.com
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141128/33cdfd90/attachment.html>