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

Mon Apr 20 10:00:28 UTC 2015

All,

Having been through the thread following release of the “Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal”, we wanted to highlight a few key points reflecting our understanding and agreement or disagreement with comments.

First, overall it seems to be a succinct and effective summary of where we have arrived at. This includes capturing the critical CCWG dependencies including the requirement for one or more “fundamental bylaws”.

As far as the Affiliate is concerned, it is our understanding that this is the model we have delicately moved towards through a process of provisional elimination during our meetings, including the two intensive work days with dedicated sessions on “structure”. In other words, provided this model does not prove to be fundamentally flawed as we scrutinise and develop it in cooperation with our legal advisors, it is the likely outcome of the work of the CWG.

As far as compatibility with the other (numbers and protocols) proposals to the ICG and associated arrangements, we do not presume anything about the other proposals or future arrangements. Save for the fact that we have sought to be aware of them and therefore be sensitive to the need (for the ICG) to ultimately integrate these with the names proposal from this group. We are not currently aware of any overarching incompatibility or issue that will mean the three proposals cannot be integrated and ultimately this will be up to the ICG to work on in conjunction with the proposing communities. That said, we believe that we (co-chairs) have made it clear that we are very receptive to and willing to engage with anyone including the core teams behind the other two proposals to the ICG for information or any other relevant purpose.

Thank-you,

Jonathan & Lise

From: James Gannon [mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net] 
Sent: 20 April 2015 08:31
To: Greg Shatan; Avri Doria
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal

I agree with Avri and Greg, I haven’t seen any move away from an affiliate, quite the opposite, my personal impression has been that there is increasing support for it as we flesh out some of the details.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 5:15 AM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal

I agree with Avri.  It is certainly not my impression that people are leaning away from an affiliate.

I would also say that, if both parties to the MoU agree that ICANN can assign it to an affiliate, there should be no real issues with doing so.  Alternately, the parties could agree that ICANN will provide the services via an affiliate, while keeping ICANN as the contractual party.  In other words, this is basically a non-issue.

Greg

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

On 19-Apr-15 19:03, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

and because people seemed to be leaning away
from an affiliate anyway 

I had not gotten that impression.  It is still the compromise point between an Internal and Contract Co ( still waiting in the background in the event there is no compromise, I expect).  I thought it was still very much in the mix.

avri

  _____  

 <http://www.avast.com/> Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>  

_______________________________________________
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/20150420/8ba72e41/attachment.html>