[CWG-Stewardship] Initial Discussion Draft on Transition Models

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

One of my comment for the Sidley report is this assumption that the
contracts would move to IANA.

I see no reason for this to happen unless the IETF/IAB & RIRs/CRISP want
them to.  It seems to me that the contracts could remain with ICANN and
that ICANN would use the affiliate to do the work.

avri


On 07-Apr-15 15:29, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 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
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150407/ea4db465/attachment.html>