[CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Dear Greg,

On 29/11/2014 07:05, Greg Shatan wrote:
> It is certainly my recollection that there were some discussions that
> involved alternatives to creating a corporation (whether another type
> of legal entity, such as a trust, or a group that had no legal status,
> such as a committee).  It was even suggested that an existing
> organization, such as the IETF (not a legal entity, actually) or ISOC
> or the IETF Trust (which exists to hold and license IPR), could be
> used to contract with the IANA Functions Provider.  I think these
> tended to fall away and did not find traction as we moved along,
> especially as the use of a contract came to the fore, which required
> an entity capable of contracting.

I do not recall having a real stab at the alternatives. The "Trust"
model was never given a chance to be discussed. Neither was the option
of keeping the contracting function within ICANN with internal
mechanisms that might create a linked entity like the ASO/NRO using
MoUs. A lot of ICANN's model is based on these MoUs. Or a model based on
SLA, processes and obligations which automatically trigger remedial
processes overseen by a neutral organisation has not been discussed either.

Instead, as Guru very correctly described, we ended up with reaching a
model of entities which were initially entities in the wider sense of
the term (hence avoiding the use of the term "bodies" which could be
seen as being a legal entity) and working on the functions of 4
entities. (in addition to the IANA Operator itself)
The 4 entities are described on the flowchart as:
- IANA Customer Standing Committee (CSC)
- IANA Periodic Review Team (PRT)
- Independent Appeals Panel for Policy Implementation (IAP)
- IANA Contracting Entity

They are all marked as "entities" so I never felt that any final
decision had been made on whether they would be incorporated.

I also applaud Guru's overall description of the Frankfurt meeting. He
also points out that multistakeholder models appear to be driven by lack
of time. Only this is no small decision that will marginally affect the
future of the naming functions. What is designed here needs to withstand
the test of time and any future challenges. Designing this by jumping
into the first solution without considering other solutions is dangerous
- especially when it might well have been the result of Groupthink.
During the meeting I saw several warnings being uttered not only by the
At-Large participants but also by independent participants as well as
ccTLD representatives and others, yet these gained no traction for
various reasons which I would not attribute to Groupthink - a good
explanation of which can be found on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

I would like us to be able to go into this public comment period with a
much more open mind and to take our blinders off. 48 hours was too short
a time to come up with a final solution and input from our wider
communities will no doubt open new perspectives that we will need to
give some serious consideration to.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

ps. I have shared scenarios of threats/mitigation with the At-Large
working group on IANA issues & will forward them to the list before the
deadline today.