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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Greg,

Just to remind you that you are yet to forward my comments/questions to
client committee. Items 3 to 5 especially requires their response.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 18 Apr 2015 19:20, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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> 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
>> 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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <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/20150421/e0d3815d/attachment.html>