[CWG-Stewardship] Initial Discussion Draft on Transition Models

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 11:04:14AM +0200, Lise Fuhr wrote:
> Please see the attached initial discussion draft of the two models from our legal counsel.

Thanks for this.  I've read it.  I have some questions.  Questions for
Sidley are listed, and then some observations for our own discussion
(which needn't take up Sidley's time) follow when appropriate in
square brackets.

In I.A, particularly in numbers 4 and 6, I can't tell whether the
assumption is that there are new agreements between PTI and the RIRs,
and PTI and IETF.  I think the fact that PTI is a new legal entity
means that new agreements would be required.  Is that correct?  [The
reason I ask this is because there is a possible risk of things coming
apart if the other operational communities need to be engaged in a new
negotiation.  If PTI just takes the existing agreements and does a
global search and replace for ICANN with PTI, that's nice, but it
doesn't solve everything.  For instance, the IETF would have to
publish a new version of RFC 2860.  It's worth remembering that every
grievance everyone has with an existing document comes into play once
the document is opened for editing.]

By way of comparison, in II.B, does using Functional Separation permit
ICANN to continue working under its existing MoUs?  I'd assume yes,
because AFAIK none of the existing agreements specify the internal
arrangements of how ICANN delivers the service.  [Notwithstanding
Milton's point about getting it "right", given the timeline there is a
significant advantage to not having to negotiate, I think, no?]

III.C talks about CSC.  In the case of a full legal separation with
independent governance, would the CSC be needed at all?  Presumably
the arrangements between PRI and their customers would be a
contractual one, and as such the management of such contractual
disputes ought to be via those contracts, and not through an extra
body.  Or is the point that the way such a contractual arrangement
would solve such disputes ought to be along the lines of the CSC?

In III.D.2 there is a question about "ultimate accountability over
ICANN's stewardhip".  I'm not entirely sure which cases this applies
to.  If there is a legal separation, how is this question relevant for
CWG?  Under the legal separation described, PTI becomes the new IANA
functions operator.  If there's full independent governance of PTI,
for instance, isn't ICANN's stewardship completely gone -- it has only
responsibility for policy, and not for IANA operation at all, right?
Is that part of the point of this question?

On III.I, I'm not sure what the difference is between CSC and IRP.
Why are both things needed?  

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com