[CWG-Stewardship] Question for Sidley

[Seun Ojedeji]

Maarten I think that is what the subsidiary  PTI(legal separation) intends
to achieve as indicated on S-A Statement. In summary, we are looking at
post-transition scenario where the entity currently being over-sighted upon
becomes the oversight on a new IANA operator/IANA manager called the PTI.

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 9 Apr 2015 21:33, "Maarten Simon" <maarten.simon at sidn.nl> wrote:

>  Hi Milton,
>
>  You mention ‘ a distinct governance body devoted to IANA performance and
> oversight issues’. Am I correct that your underlying assumption here is
> that the board of PTI will be a multistakeholder body and that they will
> oversee (and operate) the IANA function ?
>
>  Best,
>
>  Maarten
>
>
>   From: Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> Date: Thursday 9 April 2015 20:48
> To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <
> cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Question for Sidley
>
>   Chuck:
>
> I don’t know about the legal issues, but a “legal separation if needed
> later” model strikes me as a very poorly thought- out idea.
>
>
>
> There were three key advantages the S-A discussion draft identified for
> legal separation. One was that creating a legally distinct affiliate now
> would make it future separation more stable and easy. In other words, if
> you don’t lay the groundwork for separability now, it won’t ever happen, or
> if we try to make it happen t will be very ugly and destabilizing. The
> other was that there would be an explicit contract between ICANN and IANA.
> The third was that there would be a distinct governance body devoted to
> IANA performance and oversight issues.
>
>
>
> There was also a fourth advantage – an important one that you seem to have
> overlooked – raised by Mr. Boucher, which is that the legal separation
> dramatically increases chances of getting Congressional approval.
>
>
>
> The idea of “legal separation if needed later” sacrifices all four of
> those virtues for the present, with a promise that, somehow, we will move
> to it if needed later. But this doesn’t make sense to me. First, without
> Congressional approval there may be no transition at all. Second, assuming
> we follow this model who would decide if it is “needed”? Your proposal
> provides no mechanism for actually doing it, so in effect the promise of
> “if needed” is a hollow one. Third If it might be needed in the future, why
> not do it now?
>
>
>
> Further, the purely internal model that you would propose for the short
> term would require major by-law changes to be implemented for
> accountability purposes (people keep sweeping that fact under the rug).
> These by-law changes have to be carefully coordinated with the CCWG in a
> complex process. So apparently you want ICANN and its community to make a
> lot of complex and interdependent by-law changes and then discard them
> later or change the rules again?
>
>
>
> No, this idea doesn’t pass the laugh test. We have to choose one or the
> other.
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 8, 2015 9:10 PM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Question for Sidley
>
>
>
> Are there any legal issues that the CWG should be concerned with if it
> considered proposing a functional separation model for the initial
> transition and a legal separation model if needed at a later date?
>
>
>
> Chuck
> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.”
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150409/9596736a/attachment-0001.html>