<div dir="ltr">Bertrand:<div><br></div><div>I think these questions have been asked and answered several times (including by me in a response to an earlier email), but I"ll do it again. Responses inline.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com" target="_blank">bdelachapelle@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Dear Greg, dear all,<div><br></div><div>Two things: 1) a comment on the notion of "entity" and 2) a few key questions that I would like to see clearly answered to move forward</div><div><br></div><div><b>1) ON THE NOTION OF "ENTITY" AND COMMON UNDERSTANDING</b></div><div><br></div><div>In your exchange below with Holly, you mentioned two definitions of the term "entity". She rightly pointed there were of two types: one from a legal perspective and another one a more general, layman's perspective. </div><div><br></div><div>Naturally, the first one (the legal one) focuses on incorporation, with mentions such as "separate existence for tax purposes". </div><div><br></div><div>The second one, however, from the Merriam-Webster was more generic:</div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><i>1 a <strong>:</strong> <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being" target="_blank">being</a>, <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/existence" target="_blank">existence</a>; especially <strong>:</strong> independent, separate, or self-contained existence</i></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><i>b <strong>:</strong> the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes</i></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><i>2<strong>:</strong> something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality</i></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><i>3<strong>:</strong> an organization (as a business or governmental unit) that has an identity separate from those of its members</i></font> </div></blockquote><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font size="4"><span style="font-family:'times new roman',serif"><div></div></span></font></div><div><br></div><div>I have a simple question: is the IETF an "entity" acccording to that definition, although it is not incorporated? I believe the answer is yes. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font color="#0000ff">GS: It is not an entity for the purpose of entering into contracts. ISOC (which is a legal entity) enters into contracts. (IETF is an "organized activity" of ISOC.) </font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>As you know, the W3C, at least for a long period of time, was not incorporated, relying on three separate MoUs with "host" structures. (It may have changed since then but that was the case for several years). Isn't the W3C an "entity" for the purpose of the discussion we're having?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font color="#0000ff">GS: No. W3C is not an entity for the purpose of discussions regarding entering into contracts. W3C is a contractual entity, created by a Joint Agreement between the host institutions. W3C members enter into a Member Agreement signed by all 4 host institutions. </font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>Likewise, aren't the gNSO and the ccNSO, "organizations" (it is in their name) that have "an identity separate from those of (their) members", and "something that has a separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality", and a "self-contained existence"? And therefore "entities" in light of the MW definition above?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font color="#0000ff">GS: They may be entities for some purposes, but not for the purpose of entering into contracts. To the extent they are entities, that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. </font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>You may have had a legal meaning in mind for the term "entity" because of your own background but it seems clear that in Frankfurt, several people clearly understood the word in its more general meaning. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font color="#0000ff">GS: I believe this has since been clarified. </font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div><b>2) KEY QUESTIONS</b></div><div><br></div><div>In my view, the core of the discussion here can be summarized as follows: </div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">1) <b>Is incorporation required to "contract"?</b> Given that the IETF seems to have an MoU with ICANN (among other arrangements with other "entities"), I would suppose that the answer is no. Can someone clarify this important point?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font color="#0000ff">GS: As pointed out before, ISOC is the signatory of the ICANN MoU. So the answer to your question is <b>YES, YES, A THOUSAND TIMES YES.</b> </font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">2) If the answer above is indeed no, is there any practical, legal or other constraint that would <b>expressly forbid IETF, the NRO (or ASO), the ccNSO and the gNSO to have each an MoU</b> with ICANN or any other contractor for the IANA functions? </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font color="#0000ff">GS: The answer above is yes, so no need to go further. (I will also state again for the record that an MoU is a contract, and has to follow all the rules applicable to contracts in general.) </font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">3) If the answer to 2) above is no, what are <b>the pros and cons to establishing instead a specific contracting Corporation</b>, in terms of simplicity, compatibility between the mechanisms for the different groups (parameters, numbers, names), guarantee of accountability, stability and security of the system.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font color="#0000ff">GS: The answer to 2) is either "yes" or "not applicable," so no need to go further. </font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Unless these questions are clearly answered, I am afraid we will be running in circles and losing time.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font color="#0000ff">GS: I am afraid that a number of people seem to insist on running in circles. I have been spending quite some time trying to whack them back on track. I do not think that the group as a whole is running in this circle, or losing time, just a few people who desperately want to find something that doesn't exist. If it did, don't you think I would be the first person to bring it up?</font></div><div><font color="#0000ff"><br></font></div><div><font color="#0000ff">I hope that these questions are now clearly and definitively answered.</font></div><div><br></div><div><font color="#0000ff">Greg</font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Thanks for the feedback. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Best</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Bertrand</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div><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"><br></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" height="5"></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>Holly and all:<br><br></div>If we are turning to the dictionary, please consider the following:<br><br><font size="4"><span style="font-family:'times new roman',serif"><span>Entity</span> </span></font><p><font size="4"><span style="font-family:'times new roman',serif"><i><span>A</span> <span>real</span> <span>being;</span> <span>existence.</span> <span>An</span> <span>organization</span> <span>or</span> <span>being</span> <span>that</span> <span>possesses</span> <span>separate</span> <span>existence</span> <span>for</span> <span>tax</span> <span>purposes.</span> <span>Examples</span> <span>would</span> <span>be</span> <span>corporations,</span> <span>partnerships,</span> <span>estates,</span> <span>and</span> <span>trusts.</span> <span>The</span> <span>accounting</span> <span>entity</span> <span>for</span> <span>which</span> <span>accounting</span> <span>statements</span> <span>are</span> <span>prepared</span> <span>may</span> <span>not</span> <span>be</span> <span>the</span> <span>same</span> <span>as</span> <span>the</span> <span>entity</span> <span>defined</span> <span>by</span> <span>law.</span></i></span></font></p><font size="4"><span style="font-family:'times new roman',serif"> </span></font><p><font size="4"><span style="font-family:'times new roman',serif"><span>Entity</span> <i><span>includes</span> <span>corporation</span> <span>and</span> <span>foreign</span> <span>corporation;</span> <span>not-for-profit</span> <span>corporation;</span> <span>profit</span> <span>and</span> <span>not</span> <span>for-profit</span> <span>unincorporated</span> <span>association;</span></i> <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Trust" target="_blank">Business Trust</a>, <i><span>estate,</span> <span>partnership,</span> <span>trust,</span> <span>and</span> <span>two</span> <span>or</span> <span>more</span> <span>persons</span> <span>having</span> <span>a</span> <span>joint</span> <span>or</span> <span>common</span> <span>economic</span> <span>interest;</span> <span>and</span> <span>state,</span> <span>U.S.,</span> <span>and</span> <span>foreign</span> <span>governments.</span></i></span></font></p><font size="4"><span style="font-family:'times new roman',serif"> </span></font><p><font size="4"><span style="font-family:'times new roman',serif"><i><span>An</span> <span>existence</span> <span>apart,</span> <span>such</span> <span>as</span> <span>a</span> <span>corporation</span> <span>in</span> <span>relation</span> <span>to</span> <span>its</span> <span>stockholders.</span></i></span></font></p><font size="4"><span style="font-family:'times new roman',serif"> </span></font><p><font size="4"><span style="font-family:'times new roman',serif"><i><span>Entity</span> <span>includes</span> <span>person,</span> <span>estate,</span> <span>trust,</span> <span>governmental</span> <span>unit.</span></i></span></font></p><div><font size="4"><span style="font-family:'times new roman',serif">West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.<br></span></font><br></div></div>This is what I mean when I say "entity." I'll try to say "legal entity" to avoid any doubt in future. But there was no doubt in my mind (or many others) that when we were talking about creating an entity -- and in particular, an entity that could enter into a contract -- that this is what we were talking about.<br><br></div>For what it's worth, the Merriam-Webster's definition that I found first when searching the Internet is as follows:<br><br><div><div><font size="4"><span style="font-family:'times new roman',serif">1<span><em> a</em> <strong>:</strong> <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being" target="_blank">being</a>, <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/existence" target="_blank">existence</a>; <em>especially</em> <strong>:</strong> independent, separate, or self-contained existence </span><span> <div> </div><em>b</em> <strong>:</strong> the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes </span></span></font></div></div><div><div><font size="4"><span style="font-family:'times new roman',serif">2<span><strong>:</strong> something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality </span></span></font></div></div><div><div><font size="4"><span style="font-family:'times new roman',serif">3<span><strong>:</strong> an organization (as a business or governmental unit) that has an identity separate from those of its members </span></span></font></div></div><br></div>Greg<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Holly Raiche <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net" target="_blank">h.raiche@internode.on.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Thank you Alan for the time and thought you have put into this. My comments, for what they are worth, interspersed.<div><br></div><div>Holly</div><div><br><div><span><div>On 29 Nov 2014, at 4:23 pm, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">
<div>
As I have mentioned during the F2F meeting in Frankfurt and on the most
recent teleconference, I have significant problems with the proposal
currently on the table. I am taking this opportunity to present my
concerns in somewhat more detail, and I will also present what I believe
to be a viable alternative. The ideas presented are my own, but I do know
that they are largely shared by my At-Large colleagues and by some others
in the community.<br><br>
I am also quite aware that my alternative options are likely to be
vehemently opposed by some.<br><br>
I should also add that there are aspects of the current draft CWG
proposal that I strongly support. The Independent Appeals Panel is
perhaps the most important one.<br><br>
<font color="#0000FF" size="5"><b>Overview<br><br>
</b></font>Many of my concerns are due to the large number of
"details" that are, as yet, unspecified. Perhaps some of my
concerns will be negated once there are sufficient answers, but I have
the nagging feeling that for many, there will be no viable answer. This
message will necessarily be long - my apologies for that.<br><br>
<font color="#0000FF" size="5"><b>Contract Co.<br><br>
</b></font>Many of the issues surround the "entity" (as it was
referred to in Frankfurt). </div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>First - using a Webster’s Dictionary (for the many Americans commenting) entity is defined as a ‘thing which has reality and distinctness’. NB: It does NOT NECESSARILY imply any corporate status. So there was a big and surprising leap from entity - which many of us supported - to some kind of corporate structure - which seems to have become a done deal in the minds of some. However, if it ‘signs a contract’, it necessarily has some legal status. And the tasks given below suggest it should. Is it too late to ask whether it is possible to have the PRT without a contract company.</div><div><br></div><div><span><blockquote type="cite"><div>The draft somewhat glibly says that it will
only sign the contract. But it seems to be outsourcing much of its
responsibility to the Multistakeholder Periodic Review Team (PRT), and
that seems problematic. Perhaps the intent is not that all of these
things go to the PRT, but there does not seem to be anywhere else for the
functions to go. Among the tasks that it has outsourced are consultation
regarding the contents of future RFPs, RFP issuance, RFP evaluation,
contract negotiation and contract enforcement. What it cannot outsource
is addressing legal issues such as being sued by a bidder who failed for
win the contract and other such possibilities. Whether it is possible to
have such an empty company do all this remains to be demonstrated. I will
deal with problems with this outsourcing under the PRT.<br><br>
The jurisdiction under which the company is registered has been the
subject of some discussion. Clearly there are those who feel that under
no conditions can it be the US. At the same time, there are some
indications (such as terms in the Kelly bill) that imply that the US
Government may not be willing to accept anything other than the US. Note
that I understand that the Kelly bill itself may wither and die, but to
quote Milton Meuller, "We should also pay attention to it because
the bill provides a very good benchmark for preparing for the kind of
questions that the NTIA is likely to be asked after they get a complete
proposal from the ICG and begin to implement it. The Kelly bill can be
considered a list of the concerns that US-based interests are going to be
using to assess the final proposal. The GAO Report is equally important
in this regard. Ignore them at your peril." (E-mail to the
CWG-Stewardship list on 23 Nov 2014)<br><br>
Without details of exactly how this corporation will exist, it is
impossible to assure oneself that it cannot be captured or controlled by
some entity or government(s). Running IANA will be a treasured target by
some countries and we do not know what lengths they would go to capture
the contract. NTIA had the strength of the US (and its battleships and
such) behind it. Contract Co. will not.<br><br>
There has been no discussion about how this entity, or any part of the
overall proposal, is funded. More on this later.<br><br>
<font color="#0000FF" size="5"><b>Multistakeholder Periodic Review Team
(PRT)<br></b></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font color="#0000FF" size="5"><b><br>
</b></font>The PRT is effectively the operational arm of Contract Co. It
is the entity that makes decision for Contract Co., presumably including
those related to the RFP, contract negotiations, contract enforcement and
much more. But by its very name, it is Periodic. It does not exist at all
times and there are some in the community that have said it should be
re-constituted afresh every time it is needed (perhaps like the Phoenix
born from the ashes of its predecessor). I fail to understand to how it
can take action on problems if it is not an ongoing entity.<br><br>
The description says that it is a "body" with representatives
selected by the relevant bodies. Accepting that "relevant" is
to be decided later, it is unclear under whose auspices this body is
convened, and how we can ensure that it remains free from capture or
malformation. It was suggested in Frankfurt that this body could be akin
to (or even identical to) the IANA-CWG, but given that the entire concept
of this elaborate infrastructure is to allow ICANN to be completely
excluded from the IANA management process, presumably because it has
ceased to carry out this function as well as all parties claim it is now
doing, what makes us think that ICANN would take responsibility for this,
or more to the point, could be trusted to do it properly?<br></div></blockquote></span>The idea behind talking about an entity rather than a corporate structure was to suggest that it is possible to have structures with functions, without those structures have an individual corporate personality. ALAC, GNSO,ccNSO, SSAC are all examples of entities that have an ongoing existence, functions, etc but do not have separate corporate identities. It can be done - indeed, is being done.<span><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>
So how this body, which is the critical keystone
[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_(architecture" target="_blank">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_(architecture</a>)] on which this
entire superstructure depends, constituted, and funded. And how does one
ensure that it is not corrupted, or captured? Or sued. </div></blockquote></span>This was always my concern with creating a new corporate structure.</div><div><br></div><div><span><blockquote type="cite"><div>A body as large as
it will have to be will require infrastructure such as a secretariat -
how do we ensure that IT is not subverted (just look at all the effort
that has gone into ensuring an independent ICG secretariat)? And without
a corporate backing of the PRT, its members would be personally liable in
the case of a lawsuit. Who would want to serve on such a group? Moreover,
in an environment where the PRT is taking very significant decisions,
both financial offers and personal threats would be an effective method
of capture (and presumably this is all volunteer work, or at most a
modest stipend).<br></div></blockquote></span>For my money, these are critical questions - which remain unanswered. <span><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>
Surely, the PRT, which is implicitly all powerful, would need a new
oversight mechanism over it! And who oversees THAT oversight
body?<br></div></blockquote></span>EXACTLY - but the same can be said of the Contract Company. Who funds it, who monitors it. And do we not then wind up with accountability issues for ICANN AND its oversight body.<span><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>
<font color="#0000FF" size="5"><b>Customer Standing Panel (CSC)<br><br>
</b></font>It is unclear exactly what this body monitors. If it is JUST
service levels committed to by IANA, the composition may be ok. But if it
is also responsible for ensuring that IANA is following policy, then the
composition MUST reflect the multi-stakeholder body or bodies that
created such policy. You cannot presume that the customers, who may have
been vehemently opposed to any specific policy, will report that such a
policy is not being policy. If the CSC is NOT monitoring adherence to
policy, then who is? It does not seem to be covered in the proposal.
During e-mail discussions, someone said it was the job of the (for the
gTLD space) GNSO. But it does not have the staff or Bylaw mandate to do
so, nor would it have any standing to complain to whoever it is that
would attempt enforcement (the PRT??). <br></div></blockquote></span>Absolutely agree. I think the problem with the concept is the word ‘customer’; it does not encompass all those who are impacted by IANA/ICANN decisions. And agree with the comment abut the GNSO.<span><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>
There is reference to Liaison from ACs and SOs on the CSC. In the ICANN
context, a Liaison has no power other than that of persuasion. They have
no power to act if they are in disagreement with the majority of the full
members. <br></div></blockquote></span>Which is why a Standing Panel based on the MSM is the better model.<span><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>
<font color="#0000FF" size="5"><b>Cost<br><br>
</b></font>Cost has been mentioned briefly above, but it is a significant
issue. Aside from the costs of the infrastructure we are discussing here,
there is the cost of IANA. Currently this is funded by ICANN. If ICANN
were to be taken out of the picture (and the possibility of doing that is
the ONLY reason for building all of this), where does the funding come
from? From ICANN, out of the goodness of its heart, despite no longer
having ANY control over how much money is demanded or how it is spent? By
the gTLD registries, who have said they would likely fund THEIR part of
the costs, but not the entire thing. By the ccTLDs who have clearly said
we should not depend on them (with a few exceptions)?<br></div></blockquote></span>WELL SAID<span><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>
<font color="#0000FF" size="5"><b>Acceptability<br><br>
</b></font>The last time I heard Larry Strickling talk about the
stewardship transition, he said it would only take place if sufficient
controls were put in place to address ICANN messing up (i.e., in the
extreme, a rogue Board). That PRESUMES that it is ICANN at the centre of
the IANA stewardship - why else would we care about ICANN accountability
if ICANN were not involved. From that, my take is they envision the IANA
responsibility being transferred to ICANN. The Kelly bill clearly
presumes this as well - why else would it be attempting to put so many
constraints on ICANN? <br></div></blockquote></span>Again, well said<span><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>
It is not at all clear that a proposal such as one that the CWG has put
in this draft would be acceptable to the US government. <br></div></blockquote></span>I don’t think it would be either.<span><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>
It will certainly not be a favoured proposal from the point of view of
the ICANN Board (who may not have a direct say in this but cannot be
totally ignored either).<br><br>
<font color="#0000FF" size="5"><b>Integratability<br><br>
</b></font>The ICG will be tasked with integrating the CWG proposal with
that of the RIRs and the IETF. Although this is clearly their job and not
ours, I have always believed that one needs to look ahead to ensure that
there are no impassable roadblocks ahead.<br><br>
We do not definitively know what those proposals will be, but indications
are emerging. Both bodies seem to be happy with how ICANN is managing
IANA, but both feel that in the event of any untoward action, they could
move the responsibility associated with their areas somewhere else. Since
in both cases, it is the same body that sets the policy that would judge
it, no great complexity is involved. In ICANN's case, since the bodies
that set policy in the names space are (to a large extent) an integral
part of ICANN, they cannot take action against their "parent"
(so to speak). Thus this cumbersome alternative.<br><br>
Integrating these two approaches may be difficult.<br><br>
<font color="#0000FF" size="5"><b>Lost Opportunity<br><br>
</b></font>Part of the IANA Stewardship Transition is to put in place
suitable ICANN accountability and governance changes so as to ensure the
continuity of the IANA function. <br><br>
If all of the questions posed here, and the ones raised by others are
addressed, we would end up moving from a situation where an entity (the
NTIA of the US government) awards the IANA contract. The contract is
currently held by ICANN but in theory at some future date, it could be
awarded to some other organization, removing ICANN from any operational
connection to ICANN.<br><br>
The new situation would be where Contract Co. awards the IANA contract.
The contract will initially be held by ICANN but in theory at some future
date, it could be awarded to some other organization, removing ICANN from
any operational connection to ICANN.<br><br>
Notice the parallel wording. ICANN really has no motivation to change to
effect this change. And in all likelihood any change associated with this
transition will be minimal.<br><br>
If we go down the path of the current draft CWG proposal, I believe that
a major opportunity will have been lost to reform ICANN.<br><br>
<font color="#0000FF" size="5"><b>Alternative<br><br>
</b></font>Simply criticizing the current CWG draft proposal is not
particularly useful without alternatives. My alternative is certain to
not please some of the parties in this discussion, but I believe that it
is both possible and viable.<br><br>
All of the complexity of the CWG draft proposal is there to cover the
eventuality that ICANN suddenly or gracefully stops performing the IANA
function to the satisfaction of the community. That was indeed the
situation a number of years ago, and ICANN took effective action to
rectify the problems (that is, the NTI did not have to yank the contract
to fix the problems). At the moment all parties seem to agree that there
are no significant outstanding major problems, certainly none that could
justify a change in the status quo. But there is a recurrent fear of
"what if". What if ICANN had the IANA responsibility in
perpetuity and stopped caring. Or had a Board that deliberately and
without community support took action or inaction to harm how the IANA
functions are carried out (the "rogue Board scenario).<br><br>
These worst case alternatives are indeed possible. And since under the
current ICANN Bylaws, the Board is effectively sovereign, little could be
done short of changing the Board over a period of 3+ years.<br></div></blockquote></span>And this is what worries Larry Strickling - what he said publicly at the last ICANN meeting. He does want a credible answer that will satisfy his masters (including Congress)<span><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>
I suggest that there are ways to alter ICANN's Bylaws to allow the
effective control of an out-of-control Board. These mechanisms will not
be particularly appreciated by the ICANN Board, but I believe that such
measures (or something similar) would be adopted if that is what is
required to be granted IANA.<br><br>
There are a number of components that I will describe. They are not
necessarily a complete or even the correct set. Putting in place a
complete set of cohesive recommendations is what the Accountability CCWG
is being convened for. But the existence of the following as a starting
point, I believe, demonstrates that there IS a way to proceed
forward.<br><br>
-<u></u> <u></u>ACs and SOs
must be given the ability to recall their sitting Board member. There
will be no need to await the end of the current 3-year term.<br>
-<u></u> <u></u>Certain classes
of decision regarding IANA can only be made with (for an example) a
supermajority (2/3) of the Board's maximum Bylaw-mandated membership
approving the decision. Without the bulk of the AC/SO Board members,
there will not be a critical mass of Board members to take such a
decision.<br>
-<u></u> <u></u>Certain classes
of decision regarding IANA may only be made after notification period and
public comment. This would allow the ACs and SOs sufficient time to act
to recall their Board members<br>
-<u></u> <u></u>It is possible
that the composition of the Board might need to be slightly altered to
ensure that a recall of most but not all AC/SO Board members would be
effective in halting action. Or a higher threshold than supermajority
might be needed.<br>
-<u></u> <u></u>Bylaws
regarding GAC advice related to IANA might need to somewhat altered to
compensate for the GAC not having sitting Board members.<br>
-<u></u> <u></u>Similarly,
non-affiliated ccTLDs would need to be worked into the equation.<br>
-<u></u> <u></u>If allowed
under California law, the Bylaws could be require that under certain
circumstances, a Board decision could be appealed to an external body
(similar to the proposal's Independent Appeal for IANA decisions) and
that the decision would be binding and enforceable in courts.<br></div></blockquote></span>I don’t think this is the entire answer BUT it goes a long way towards a workable response that can dovetail nicely with what both the numbers and protocols community are coming up with. </div><div><br></div><div>Again, that you Alan - this is a really good summary of both concerns and a very positive way forward.</div><span><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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><br></blockquote></div><br></span></div></div><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><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br></div></div>-- <br><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(23,54,93)">Gregory S. Shatan </span></b><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Symbol;color:rgb(23,54,93)">ï</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(23,54,93)"> </span></b><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(192,80,77)">Abelman Frayne & Schwab</span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(23,54,93)">666 Third Avenue </span></b><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Symbol;color:rgb(23,54,93)">ï</span></b><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(23,54,93)"> New York, NY 10017-5621</span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy">Direct</span></b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy"> </span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(17,85,204)"><a value="+12128859253" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">212-885-9253</a> <b>| </b></span><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy">Main</span></b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy"> </span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(17,85,204)"><a value="+12129499022" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">212-949-9022</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy">Fax</span></b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy"> </span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(17,85,204)"><a value="+12129499190" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">212-949-9190</a> <b>|</b> </span><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy">Cell </span></b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(17,85,204)"><a value="+19178166428" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">917-816-6428</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><i><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy"><a href="mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">gsshatan@lawabel.com</a><u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><font>ICANN-related: <a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a> </font></b></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><i><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy"><a href="http://www.lawabel.com/" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">www.lawabel.com</a></span></i></b></p></div></div></div></div>
</div>
<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><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(23,54,93)">Gregory S. Shatan </span></b><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Symbol;color:rgb(23,54,93)">ï</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(23,54,93)"> </span></b><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(192,80,77)">Abelman Frayne & Schwab</span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(23,54,93)">666 Third Avenue </span></b><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Symbol;color:rgb(23,54,93)">ï</span></b><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(23,54,93)"> New York, NY 10017-5621</span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy">Direct</span></b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy"> </span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(17,85,204)"><a value="+12128859253" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">212-885-9253</a> <b>| </b></span><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy">Main</span></b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy"> </span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(17,85,204)"><a value="+12129499022" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">212-949-9022</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy">Fax</span></b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy"> </span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(17,85,204)"><a value="+12129499190" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">212-949-9190</a> <b>|</b> </span><b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy">Cell </span></b><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(17,85,204)"><a value="+19178166428" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">917-816-6428</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><i><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy"><a href="mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">gsshatan@lawabel.com</a><u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><font>ICANN-related: <a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a> </font></b></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><b><i><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:navy"><a href="http://www.lawabel.com/" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">www.lawabel.com</a></span></i></b></p></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>