[CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities

[Greg Shatan]

I don't think there's any reason to assume that IANA, Inc. would be an
asset-less entity.  The assets that the IANA department uses to perform its
functions could (and probably should) become assets of IANA, Inc.
Likewise, the employees of the IANA department could become employees of
IANA, Inc.  Capitalizing the entity and giving it revenue would be a
challenge, but not an unreasonable one.  As for piercing the corporate
veil, I don't think that would be a paramount concern for ICANN, since they
are now fully liable for the acts of the IANA department.

Finally, I doubt that one would need to replicate the broader
accountability mechanisms -- amend and adapt, yes -- but not replicate.

Greg Shatan

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:

>   And aren’t we concerned that incorporating IANA as a sub leaves users
> depending on an asset-less entity in the event there is a problem?
> Presumably, ICANN would want to set up a sub that would survive an attempt
> to pierce the corporate veil.  In addition, we would have to replicate all
> of the broader (other than SLA) accountability mechanisms.
>
>
>  J. Beckwith Burr
>
> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  /
> becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>
>   From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 3:51 PM
> To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <
> cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the
> other two communities
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
>
>
>
> 1.     *Make IANA a Subsidiary of ICANN*.  In order to promote structural
> separation, and to allow for future separation of the IANA group from ICANN
> should that become appropriate, IANA could become a wholly-owned subsidiary
> of ICANN (rather than a department).  This would allow other entities to
> contract directly with IANA, rather than contracting with ICANN for IANA
> services.This would also make future separation easier (and should make the
> threat of separation as an accountability mechanism more realistic).
>
>
>
> MM: Based on my initial, rather quick evaluation of this idea, I think it
> is a good idea for the short term; in fact, those who argue for a new,
> independent contracting authority might be well-served if IANA were a
> separate subsidiary of ICANN. This would, as Greg suggests, make it easier
> to contract separately with ICANN’s IANA and facilitate the kind of
> separability that might be required in the future.
>
>
>
> However, this would be the easy part. The hard part is: who awards the
> contract?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141023/78c95c50/attachment.html>