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

Thu Jan 29 03:46:12 UTC 2015

Chris
I think Jordan made a valid point, but phrased it badly. You're still not off the hook.
(Let  me also point out that neither of the links you provided actually points to anything, at least not from where I am accessing the internet.)

You and Holly are saying that a trust does not necessarily create another entity. Your reasoning is based on this definition:
"A trust is not a separate legal entity. Rather, a trust is a relationship where a person or company (the trustee) is under a legal obligation to deal with property owned by the trust (trust property) for the benefit of some other person or persons (beneficiaries) or for some specific purpose or purposes (objects)."
But this is only true when there is an individual - someone with agency - who holds property. This person designates a trustee to hold the trust property. Who is that individual and what is the property in this case? In other words, who "owns" the IANA functions and is able to award them as "trust property" to ICANN or to someone else as the trustee?

If you tell me it is a committee similar to the MRT, which is independent of ICANN then you have created another entity that must be capable of creating a "LEGAL OBLIGATION to deal with the...trust property for the benefit of the beneficiaries.

If you tell me it is ICANN who a) owns the property, and b) designates itself as the trustee then it looks to me as if you've created a recursive hall of mirrors in which ICANN is accountable to no one but itself.

If you tell me the MRT that owns the trust property is a part of ICANN, again we have ICANN deisngating itself as the trustee; it is unclear how such an entity can create a legal obligation on ICANN without being independent of ICANN.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:02 PM
To: Jordan Carter
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Another alternative proposal - addressing some questions

Hi Jordan,

Apologies for taking so long to respond to you on this.

Acknowledging that trusts are not necessarily familiar to all and that any proposal re the transition will be subjected to legal advice, in simple terms, you are incorrect and thus neither your A) nor B) below hold true.

but it does always involve the creation of a legal personality,

No it does not. A trustee must be a legal entity. A TRUST itself is not a legal entity.

Whilst I do not hold wikipedia out as a necessarily reliable source, check out http://wiki.auda.local/index.php.

And whilst the below is a quotation from lawyers in the Australia system (http://www.schweizer.com.au/articles/Trusts_(SK00125466).pdf), the principle regarding trusts holds good in any system based on common law (such as the USA) unless amended by statute which is, of course, why legal advice is required on this and other proposed models.

"A trust is not a separate legal entity. Rather, a trust is a relationship where a person or company (the trustee) is under a legal obligation to deal with property owned by the trust (trust property) for the benefit of some other person or persons (beneficiaries) or for some specific purpose or purposes (objects)."

Cheers,

Chris

On 23 Jan 2015, at 21:56 , Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:

Interesting thread.

My knowledge of trust law is not extensive but it does always involve the creation of a legal personality, at least in my jurisdiction (Nz - Anglo common law).

Thus it's difficult to see how the AUDA proposal is internally coherent.

Either

A) the trust is a separate entity owning the right to the Iana functions, as it can then transfer these away from Icann if the guardian (the trustees?) trigger the applicable processes,

Or

B) the trust isn't an entity in which case it isn't a trust - it's just some sort of agreement to do something in a given circumstance.

In the former case many of the issues are the same as contract co. In the latter case, it isn't clear why this is better than a simpler internal solution involving ICANN's bylaws, which would at least be clear.

Decent advice on this would need to be urgently procured if the CWG intends to pursue it.

Either way, the ambition is to concentrate stewardship of the DNS in Icann, which I do not support - I don't believe we should be concentrating power over core Internet infrastructure compared with how this is managed today. I still haven't heard a reasoned argument as to why it's a good idea to do so.

But that point of view is well known and one on which Chris and I do not see eye to eye. :-)

Best
Jordan

On Friday, 23 January 2015, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>> wrote:

As I understand, trusts are generally established between three legal entities: the author, trustee and the beneficiary. Under trust law in my jurisdiction, the person who reposes or declares the confidence is called the "author of the trust"; The person who accepts the confidence is called the "trustee"; the person for whose benefit the confidence is accepted is called the "beneficiary".

<I quote Greg from a previous exchange on the list>
Under US law, trusts operate essentially the same way as you describe.  The "author" is typically called the "Settlor" or the "Grantor," but the role is the same.  Typically, a trust is used for the holding of money or other assets.  The Settlor typically donates the assets to the Trust, and the Beneficiary ultimately gets the benefit of these assets.  The Trustee (sometimes also called the Administrator) manages the Trust, and has a "fiduciary responsibility" to both the Settler and the Beneficiary (but typically, no responsibility to anyone else).  Sometimes, the Trustee legally named in the document will hire a professional "Administrator" to run the trust (this often happens where a family member is the Trustee).
</quote>

In the AUDA proposal and from the discussions on this thread, I identify the following entities:

1) Trustee - IANA Functions Operator (IFO) - Presently ICANN
2) Author/settlor/grantor - Guardian - Community - Respresented through a CCWG
3) Beneficiary - Community/customers of IANA

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Im curious to know:
1) Will the Guardian be a legal entity?; if not, how is it represented in the trust?
2) Will the Beneficiary also be a legal entity?; if not, how is it represented in the trust?

Thanks.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc at gmail.com');>> wrote:
Thanks, and safe travels.

Greg

Gregory S. Shatan
Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab
666 Third Avenue * New York, NY 10017-5621
Direct  212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
Fax  212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
gsshatan at lawabel.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gsshatan at lawabel.com');>
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc at gmail.com');>
www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ceo at auda.org.au');>> wrote:
But really quickly -

Just to confirm, the registries (and not the larger multistakeholder community)  are the beneficiaries of the trust.  This has some downstream consequences (see below).

Not necessarily. That is a matter for the community to discuss and come to consensus on. Certainly the proposal envisages that the Guardian would be multistakeholder.
Cheers,

Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer
.au Domain Administration Ltd
T: +61 3 8341 4111<tel:%2B61%203%208341%204111> | F: +61 3 8341 4112<tel:%2B61%203%208341%204112>
E: ceo at auda.org.au<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ceo at auda.org.au');> | W: www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au/>

auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator

On 23 Jan 2015, at 16:53, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc at gmail.com');>> wrote:

Chris,

Please see below.

Greg

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ceo at auda.org.au');>> wrote:
Hi Greg,

Thanks for your comments. My apologies for mischaracterising contract co as having 'shareholders'. To your other comments and generally:

Also, trusts are separate legal entities, so it is similar to Contract Co in that regard (and thus prey to many of the same "complexities.")

A trust is not a legal entity. A trustee is a legal entity.

Chris:  I think there are nuances here that are beyond both of us (hence the need for targeted legal expertise).  Here is an excerpt from the US government website (www.usa.gov<http://www.usa.gov/>), describing trusts:

 Creating a trust (or trust fund) establishes a legal entity that holds property or assets for the person who created it. The person who creates the trust can be called a grantor, donor, or settlor. When the grantor creates the trust he or she appoints a person or entity (like the trust department of a bank) to manage the trust. This person or entity is called a trustee. The grantor also chooses someone who will ultimately benefit from the trust, this person is the beneficiary.

http://www.usa.gov/topics/money/personal-finance/trusts.shtml

Further research reveals apparently contradictory statements regarding the legal and juristic standing of trusts, as well as instances in which trusts are legal entities for certain purposes (e.g., tax) and not others (e.g., standing to sue).  I can only conclude that some real expertise in trust law is needed to sort this out.
It's my understanding that trusts are created to hold property.  Shouldn't the Trust (and not the Trustee) own the IANA function?  If the Trust doesn't hold the IANA Functions, what assets are held by the Trust?

Because the trust is not a legal entity, the trustee holds the property for the benefit of the beneficiaries. The asset is the right to run the IANA function and that is what is held by the trustee.

I'm not familiar with this "guardian" concept (unless it was created uniquely for this proposal).  Is this an Australian law concept?  Do you know if this is similar to the "trust protector" concept in the US?

It's not an Australina concept however the word may be different. It is used synonymously with protector, appointor, supervisor and the like.

I believe this proposal simplifies the contract co proposal, by removing the creating of Contract Co. - the Contract Co. here is not "ICANN". ICANN is performing the IANA naming functions, for the benefit of the "customers" of the IANA naming functions (who are the stated beneficiaries of the trust, replacing the need to create "Contract Co.").

Justin to confirm, the registries (and not the larger multistakeholder community)  are the beneficiaries of the trust.  This has some downstream consequences (see below).

The Trustee also has higher fiduciary obligations, which require them to always act in the best interests of the beneficiaries (not just for themselves).

What if the interests of the beneficiaries (i.e., the registries) diverge from the interests of the multistakeholder community generally or the public interest?  Wouldn't that require the Trustee (i.e., ICANN) to act in the registries' interest, even if it is to the detriment of other stakeholders?  That seems at odds with the idea of accountability to stakeholders, generally.  We would need to find a way to deal with this.

The Trust can be "settled" by the NTIA passing on the "right to perform the IANA naming functions" to ICANN as the trustee. So, two parties: NTIA as settlor; ICANN as trustee.

Trustee can always unilaterally declare a trust - but this would be a redundant question now in light of explanation above.

The beneficiaries of the trust would be the "customers" of the IANA naming functions - as described in the ICG RF.

The guardian is the "protector" of the beneficiaries. It can't be the entire pool of beneficiaries, but it can be someone, or some group of people, who represents  the beneficiaries.

All of the above is subject to confirmation by the relevant legal experts that this is workable under Californian law.

Thanks for the further explanation.  It is an interesting proposal, with some issues (as others have as well).  I look forward to working through it, getting the necessary legal advice, and seeing if this will work.
Greg

Cheers,

Chris

On 23 Jan 2015, at 08:00 , Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc at gmail.com');>> wrote:

Chris,

A few quick comments, inline below:

Greg

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ceo at auda.org.au');>> wrote:
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.

Chris:  This is not correct. The proposal was that Contract Co would be a not-for-profit corporation, which don't have shareholders (or any kind of owner).  Also, trusts are separate legal entities, so it is similar to Contract Co in that regard (and thus prey to many of the same "complexities.")

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.

It's my understanding that trusts are created to hold property.  Shouldn't the Trust (and not the Trustee) own the IANA function?  If the Trust doesn't hold the IANA Functions, what assets are held by the Trust?

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.

I'm not familiar with this "guardian" concept (unless it was created uniquely for this proposal).  Is this an Australian law concept?  Do you know if this is similar to the "trust protector" concept in the US?

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.

Cheers,

Thanks,

Greg

Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer

.au Domain Administration Ltd

T: +61 3 8341 4111<tel:%2B61%203%208341%204111> | F: +61 3 8341 4112<tel:%2B61%203%208341%204112>

E: ceo at auda.org.au<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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.

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20150129/1f1c21cb/attachment-0001.html>