[CWG-Stewardship] Another alternative proposal - addressing some questions

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Thu Jan 22 20:46:13 UTC 2015

Thanks Chris.  #3 addresses the first question I had when reading the proposal earlier today.


From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 3:14 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Another alternative proposal - addressing some questions

Greetings All,

Earlier today Paul Szyndler from auDA sent to RFP3 another alternative proposal (attached).

I have received a number of questions off list from some ccTLD colleagues and others and thought it might be helpful to address them all in this email to the CWG.

1. Are there legal issues with the Trust solution? I am not an expert in Californian law but as a lawyer I do know a fair bit about trusts and their structure. The proposal is workable in general terms but there may be nuances of Californian law generally, or specifically as it applies to Californian corporations like ICANN, which would make the proposed structure overly complicated or problematic. Like the 'contract co' proposal and auDA's original 'golden by-law' proposal I expect this to be put to independent legal experts who can advise on the merits of each of the proposals.

2. Isn't creating a trust just creating 'contract co' by another name? No. My understanding of 'contract co' is that it would be a separate legal entity owned by some, yet to be identified, group of shareholders. With the trust, ICANN would own the IANA function but declare in a legally binding document that it did so on trust for the relevant stakeholder community. And the Guardian of the Trust (see the proposal for details) would control the process by which ICANN could be replaced as trustee in a defined set of circumstances. This is thus an inherently 'internal to ICANN' approach.

3. Why would ICANN be the trustee? In simple terms because auDA believes in an 'internal to ICANN' approach. We believe that ICANN should run IANA but that there should be the ability to move the IANA function away in certain defined circumstances. That is what this proposal (and our first 'golden by-law' proposal) achieve and that's what differentiates them from the 'contract co' proposal.

I know I don't need to say this but for the avoidance of doubt, this is an auDA proposal. I have not discussed it with my fellow ICANN directors

I will not be on the RFP3B call Friday as I'll be somewhere mid-air between Dubai and Melbourne. However, Paul Szyndler will be on the call and will happily enter into any discussion on the proposal and answer (or undertake to get answers to) any questions that may be raised.

I hope this is helpful.


Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer

.au Domain Administration Ltd

T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112

E: ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au/>

auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator

Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150122/b37c529a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list