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

[Milton L Mueller]

SO:
I thought we got passed the external oversight stuff hence the reason for dropping "contract co" and the only issue was whether separability was possible with functional separation. If that is the case, i think we have indeed gotten confirmation from legal that it's possible but with the difficulty clause. If NTIA were to decide to move

MM: First, we didn’t “drop” Contract Co because we all agreed there was no need for external oversight. I think everyone agrees there is a need for separabiity (it is in the principles) and some form of oversight. Further, contrary to what some have suggested here, the legal advisors never claimed Contract Co was not possible to do or “didn’t work.”

We set aside Contract Co because we all know what it is and we also know that it doesn’t have consensus. We were exploring middle-ground options to see if they could get more stakeholder groups on board.

SO: That said, I think we are taking legal separation of IANA as the sole goal of this working group which is not the case. Keeping the operator of IANA accountable is the main goal and I hope we could focus on this in 90%+

MM: Legal separation is all about keeping the operator of the IANA functions accountable. It keeps the IANA performance out of the morass of ICANN’s policy making process and provides a targeted governance structure that is focused on the IANA functions specifically. That’s about accountability.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150412/20225c3b/attachment.html>