[CWG-Stewardship] Remember to send questions and comments to legal advice from Sidley Austin

[Maarten Simon]

And I thought that we just a week ago decided not to work on that model for now.

From: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
Date: Thursday 9 April 2015 22:04
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>, Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Remember to send questions and comments to legal advice from Sidley Austin

I also think this is what Paul was suggesting.

On 4/9/2015 7:37 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I second what Milton is saying.  I think Paul is proposing essentially an inversion of the Sidley Austin model (and by extension the "Integrated Hybrid Model" or the "Internal Model with Structural Separation").  As I read Paul's suggestion, instead of having the affiliate be the "Post-Transition IANA" (i.e., the IANA Functions operations "in a box"), the affiliate would be the "Post-Transition Oversight/Accountability Mechanism" ("PTOAM"?).  Presumably, this would keep the IANA Functions operations inside of ICANN as a (functionally separated) unit.  The PTOAM would then be much like Contract Co. (although [possibly] "affiliated" with ICANN rather than completely independent).

Greg


Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab

Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet

666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621

Direct  212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022

Fax  212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428

gsshatan at lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>

ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:


> -----Original Message-----
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 10:58:30PM +0100, Paul M Kane - CWG wrote:
> > I would like to specifically ask Sidley to give formal advise on how
> > best to ensure an affiliate company (as part of ICANN Community) can
> > be the custodian for the Stewardship role currently undertaken by NTIA.
>
> I thought in the Sidley documents, ICANN was taking the Stewardship role
> currently held by NTIA, and PTI does the IANA part, at least if there's an
> affiliate company.  Did I misunderstand?

You did not misunderstand the Sidley-Austin discussion draft. You are, I think, misunderstanding Paul Kane. Paul seems to be asking that the Affiliate be more like the Contract Co.

_______________________________________________
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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


--
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150409/a129e178/attachment.html>