[CWG-Stewardship] Initial Discussion Draft on Transition Models

Wed Apr 8 02:30:03 UTC 2015

Hi,

Yes, I should have said apparent assumption. 

I think only option 1 is viable unless the other operational communities
inform us otherwise.

avri

On 07-Apr-15 19:24, Greg Shatan wrote:
>  I don't believe they assumed that the contracts would move to IANA. 
> I read the language in I.A.7 as a bit of a "fudge"/ambiguity.  In any
> event, I think that all 3 options are open:
>
>
> 1. ICANN retains the contracts with the RIRs and IETF, with a minor
> amendment allowing ICANN to offer the service, but have the service
> fulfilled by its wholly-controlled affiliate (or wholly-owned
> subsidiary) PTI.
> 2. ICANN enters into an "assignment and assumption" agreement whereby
> PTI takes over ICANN's position in the agreements.
> 3, ICANN and the RIRs/IETF terminate the current agreements, and PTI
> enters into new agreements with the RIRs and IETF.
>
> The first option fits the principle of "change as little as possible
> (and explain any change you make".
> The second option fits the principle of "make PTI as easily separable
> from ICANN as possible."
> The third option fits the principle of "let's make everything messy
> and complicated."
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>     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
>>
>
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> 	
>
>     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>     www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>     CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

---
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/a11e57e7/attachment.html>