<div dir="ltr">Chuck,<div><br></div><div>On that specific point, what needs to be separated is the performance of the policy functions and the performance of the IANA functions. We are all in agreement about that, that's true. </div><div><br></div><div>But ii is the allocation of the mandate that is under discussion here, not the actual performance of the function. It would then be compatible with the separation in my view. After all, if the IETF (or ISOC) contracts for its part, and the NRO (or its members) contract for its own, this would be the same situation, as they both are the policy bodies. </div><div><br></div><div>In any case, at some point, the allocation of the mandate will have to come from the interested parties, and by definition, the interested parties are also the ones who, separately, develop the policies. </div><div><br></div><div>Attributing the mandate is therefore not a confusion of functions. </div><div><br></div><div>What I am trying to explore is the maximum similarity between what is expected to come from the parameters and numbers communities with what this group might suggest for names. Of course names have problems of their own, and one of them is that the structures that deal with the policies (certainly for gTLDs) are within ICANN and not formally incorporated, whereas they are outside of ICANN and to a certain extend incorporated for the two others. </div><div><br></div><div>B. </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><table width="600" border="0" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:1em;color:rgb(38,38,38)"><tbody><tr><td colspan="3" height="5"></td></tr><tr style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(176,173,176)"><td colspan="3">"<em>Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes</em>", Antoine de Saint Exupéry<br>("<em>There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans</em>")</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" height="10"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><span style="color:rgb(0,138,204);text-transform:uppercase">BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE</span></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Internet & Jurisdiction Project | Director</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">email <a href="mailto:bdelachapelle@internetjurisdiction.net" alt="email Bertrand de la Chapelle" style="color:rgb(159,157,159);text-decoration:none" target="_blank">bdelachapelle@internetjurisdiction.net</a></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">email <a href="mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com" alt="email Bertrand de la Chapelle" style="color:rgb(159,157,159);text-decoration:none" target="_blank">bdelachapelle@gmail.com</a></td></tr><tr colspan="3"><td>twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction" alt="Internet & Jurisdiction Twitter Accompt" style="color:rgb(159,157,159);text-decoration:none" target="_blank">@IJurisdiction</a> | <a href="https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle" alt="Paul Fehlinger Twitter" style="color:rgb(159,157,159);text-decoration:none" target="_blank">@bdelachapelle</a></td></tr><tr colspan="3"><td>mobile <span style="color:rgb(159,157,159)">+33 (0)6 11 88 33 32</span></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><a href="http://www.internetjurisdiction.net" alt="Internet & Jurisdiction Website" style="color:rgb(159,157,159);text-decoration:none" target="_blank">www.internetjurisdiction.net</a></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" height="5"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><img src="http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/InternetJurisdiction-Logo-w300px.png" alt="A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE PROCESS" width="300" style="margin:0px;border:none"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" height="5"></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Gomes, Chuck <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">In addition to Avri’s points, the GNSO and ccNSO are policy management bodies and my understanding that there is strong agreement that policy and IANA functions
should be separated.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Chuck<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Avri Doria<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 01, 2014 11:19 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Do we really need a Contracting Co.?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">hi,<br>
<br>
GNSO and ccNSO have no ability to sign a contract with anyone, they are just parts of ICANN and ICANn cannot sign a contract with itself.<br>
<br>
The contracting authority for IANA must be outside ICANN and it must be an entity that is capable of signing a contract.<br>
<br>
avri<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 01-Dec-14 17:13, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Avri, <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I want to clarify. You wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>The problem is that if the ICANN internal multistakeholder community says A, the ICANN Board can say Not A, and there is NOTHING we can do about it. </i> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" width="600" style="width:6.25in">
<tbody>
<tr style="height:3.75pt">
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;height:3.75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">The avenue I am exploring is to empower the ccNSO and the gNSO
<u>as such</u> with the capacity to sign an MoU with the chosen IANA contractor (and to choose it). In that approach, the ICANN Board would NOT be in the loop. <br>
<br>
Does that clarify and answer your concern?<br>
<br>
B.<u></u><u></u></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:3.75pt">
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;height:3.75pt"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 01-Dec-14 16:40, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">- ICANN has built a highly diverse multi-stakeholder environment and we should leverage on that by providing mechanisms that will energise it.<u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
Indeed the PRT does that. <br>
<br>
The problem is that if the ICANN internal multistakeholder community says A, the ICANN Board can say Not A, and there is NOTHING we can do about it. Thus there needs to be an external entity that the ICANN stakeholder environment we have created can directly
affect without threat of capture by ICANN Corporate.<br>
<br>
That is the primary Capture Entity we need to concern ourselves with: ICANN Corporate.<br>
<br>
avri<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>