[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal

[Gomes, Chuck]

I won’t comment now on the perceived strengths and weaknesses that Seun mentions in 4 & 5 but I do think his points are good on 1, 2 & 3.  In particular, regarding 3, I think we need to be very careful how we use ‘independent of ICANN’ because that could mean not using existing SOs and ACs, which I think would be a mistake.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 2:20 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal

To Client committee,

Kindly find a few comments/questions below:

1. The existing IANA naming functions department, administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI
I don't think there is "IANA naming function department" but there is "IANA functions department" So i propose the following:

The IANA naming functions, related administrative staff and resources, processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI from the exiting "IANA functions department"

2. The IANA portion of the ICANN budget would be subject to

I think it may be useful to be more specific about the IANA budget referred. So the wording below may be useful:

The IANA portion of the ICANN budget related to naming would be subject to.......

3 .....conducted by a multi-stakeholder body, independent from ICANN

There is no section of the document that describe what independent in that statement meant. If it mean independent of ICANN board then it should be clearly stated.

4. The strengths of this proposed structure are as follows:
Isn't item c on also a weakness in practical sense considering that ICANN is the source of funding of IANA?


5. The weaknesses of the proposed structure are as follows:

I think introduction of new entity/structures creates accountability concerns which i think should be included as a weakness. Also the running cost of those structures should be included as a weakness (overall the end-user bears the cost)
Last but not the list, the overall statement seem to miss mention of the formation of the charter/bylaw for the PRF?
Regards

On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Client Committee List for CWG <cwg-client at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,

Attached is a summary of the current legal structure under consideration by the CWG.   This also includes the CCWG dependencies.

Please let us know if you have any comments or would like to discuss.

Best regards,
Sharon

SHARON FLANAGAN
Partner

Sidley Austin LLP
+1.415.772.1271<tel:%2B1.415.772.1271>
sflanagan at sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>





****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

****************************************************************************************************

_______________________________________________
Cwg-client mailing list
Cwg-client at icann.org<mailto:Cwg-client at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
The key to understanding is humility - my view !

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150419/37f95250/attachment.html>