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

[Milton L Mueller]

Personally, I would have preferred a solution where the other operational communities jointly owned/controlled the affiliate, but that idea was not treated favorably by those operational communities, so now we have  a possible solution that leaves them with the status quo for their relationships with ICANN.

MM: I thought this issue was settled by the Sidley-Austin commentary and via list discussion. First, the fact that IETF doesn't want a jointly owned affiliate does not mean that they reject having their MoU move to PTI. While Andrew expressed some concerns about that shift, Sidley made it clear that the MoU between ICANN and IOTC can be assigned to PTI and this posed no problem (indeed, given some of the behind the scenes bargaining that is rumored to be going on between the two might make them more inclined to want PTI rather than ICANN as their counterparty, though that is hearsay at this point). And the contract between the RIRs and ICANN or PTI hasn't been written yet, so it could easily designate PTI as the counterparty. No one from the numbers community has expressed any concern about that, and having been in contact with several people in that community I suspect that, as with protocols, some might prefer that.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150419/5916f3ee/attachment.html>