[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] The Reverse Hybrid Model

Tue Apr 14 07:32:20 UTC 2015

Agreed.
-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On April 14, 2015 3:04:50 AM EDT, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com> wrote:
>I personally tend to see it that way Maarten...   Thanks for
>articulating
>it so clearly though
>
>
>*Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ...  *(CLO)
>
>about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
>[image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me]
>  <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
>
>
>On 14 April 2015 at 16:59, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon at sidn.nl> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Greg (and Paul),
>>
>>  Isn’t this this simply the return of contract co ? And didn’t we in
>> Istanbul decide to leave this further aside a it was quit clear that
>there
>> was not much of support for it?
>>
>>  Maarten
>>
>>   From: Client Committee List for CWG <cwg-client at icann.org>
>> Reply-To: "cwg-client at icann.org" <cwg-client at icann.org>
>> Date: Tuesday 14 April 2015 07:41
>> To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>, Client <
>> cwg-client at icann.org>
>> Subject: [client com] The Reverse Hybrid Model
>>
>>   All,
>>
>>  Paul Kane among others has suggested a variation on the current
>> "internal" models.  Rather than quashing it, I thought it was proper
>to
>> give it appropriate consideration.  As Paul is traveling, I thought I
>would
>> put this together so that it could be given such consideration.
>>
>> For the sake of convenience, I'm calling it the "Reverse Hybrid
>Model."
>>
>> In this model, ICANN would still be the source of the right to
>perform the
>> IANA Functions, as in the current internal model.  However, ICANN 
>would
>> enter into an irrevocable agreement with the Affiliate for the IANA
>> Functions.  Rather than having the right to perform the IANA
>Functions
>> itself, the Affiliate would be given the right to contract for an
>entity to
>> act as IANA Functions Operator.  (Thus, the Affiliate would be set up
>as a
>> supervisor, not as an operator.)  Initially (but not perpetually),
>that
>> subcontracted entity would be ICANN, the current IANA Functions
>Operator.
>> However, the Affiliate would have the option, under the circumstances
>> designated by the CWG, to separate the performance of the IANA
>Functions
>> from ICANN (e.g., by issuing an RFP and enter into an agreement with
>a
>> third party).
>>
>> As with the current internal models, ICANN Corporate would be the
>only
>> member of the Affiliate. The multi-stakeholder community would
>(s)elect the
>> independent Board of the Affiliate, which would have a limited (and
>> defined) scope.
>>
>> It may appear that ICANN is granting a right to itself, through the
>> Affiliate.  However, the key is that the Affiliate would have the
>oversight
>> and stewardship responsibility over the IANA Functions, by exercising
>the
>> rights and powers it has under the agreement with the IANA Functions
>> Operator.  In other words, the Affiliate would be the contractor with
>> oversight of ICANN-as-IANA Functions Operator, and would also have
>the
>> right to exercise escalation rights, up to and including issuing an
>RFP and
>> potentially a contract to a third party if the designated triggers
>> warranted it.  The CSC and the PRT would be activities of the
>Affiliate,
>> created by bylaws of the Affiliate, with a multistakeholder board
>providing
>> oversight over the CSC and the PRT and ultimately over the IANA
>Functions
>> Operator (initially, ICANN-as-IANA).
>>
>> Under the irrevocable agreement, ICANN would retain "ownership" of
>the
>> IANA Function Operator rights but the Affiliate would (irrevocably)
>hold
>> the right to subcontract for the performance of those services. 
>Although
>> ICANN would be the only member, we would need to insure that its
>rights as
>> the member to override the Board were as limited as possible.
>>
>> While this does not structurally separate the IANA Function
>operations
>> from the rest of ICANN, it does separate the stewardship and the
>> decision-making rights regarding the performance of the operations
>from
>> ICANN.  As with the second option under the current hybrid proposal,
>there
>> would be functional separation of the IANA Function operations from
>the
>> rest of ICANN.
>>
>> While structural separation of the IANA Functions operations does
>make a
>> certain kind of future total separation easier (spinning off the
>current
>> IANA Functions Operator within ICANN), this is really the less likely
>form
>> of total separation.  The more likely form of total separation would
>be the
>> selection of a new IANA Functions Operator, and that right would be
>> structurally separated from ICANN.
>>
>> More importantly from an operational perspective, the oversight and
>> stewardship over the operations of the IANA Functions would be
>structurally
>> separated from ICANN.  It would be firmly in the CSC, the PRT and the
>> multistakeholder board.  This would be the primary job of the
>Affiliate,
>> putting service accountability front and center.  Yet, it does not
>slight
>> separability.
>>
>>  I believe this proposal has sufficient merit to warrant due
>> consideration.   One of the reasons we have engaged Sidley is so that
>we
>> can understand the viability and desirability of various models and
>> mechanisms (and so I and other don't have to "play lawyer").  In that
>> spirit, I am forwarding this model to both the CCWG and the Client
>> Committee so that this "Reverse Hybrid" model can be appropriately
>> considered.
>>
>>  Speak to you all in a few hours, as dawn rises over New York City.
>>
>>  Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards to both
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150414/6d43579b/attachment.html>