<div dir="ltr"><div>I think most of Alan's concerns about integratability with other proposals, acceptability by USG, nature of PRT etc have been addressed by multiple people. <br></div><div><br></div><div>What remains un-answered are Alan's concerns about (i) Contract Co becoming a target for litigation; (ii) source of funding of Contract Co; (iii) jurisdiction of Contract Co; and (iv) accountability of Contract Co. </div><div><br></div><div>I agree that these are substantial concerns. </div><div><br></div><div>The Contract Co can be the subject of litigation for multiple reasons including wrongful termination of a IANA contract; or any cause of action related to a failed bid for a IANA contract. It can also be reasonable to assume that Contract Co will be made a party to all cases that are against ICANN in the future. For example, a case similar to the recent 'Iran/Iraq ccTLD as attachable property' will definitely make Contract Co a respondent along with ICANN.</div><div><br></div><div>Therefore, Contract Co will need a substantial litigation war chest. There will also be substantial costs involved in contract drafting; negotiation; preparation of RFPs etc. This needs to be addressed. Greg suggested the possibility of a litigation indemnification mechanism. A mechanism to deal with unforeseen non-litigation expenses should also be explored.</div><div><br></div><div>@Allan & Olivier: What accountability mechanisms do you suggest should be built into the Contract Co by-laws?</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
<br>
<div><span class="">On 01-Dec-14 17:02, Alan Greenberg
wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">But my main
reason for opposition is that I am far from convinced that all
of the
questions I and others have can be viably answered. <br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
As far as I can tell they have been answered. You just have not
accepted the answers you have been given.<br>
which is of course your right. But from my reading they have been
answered multiple times in different ways.<br>
<br>
My answer invovled the parallel with the BCP 101 from the IETF.
where the administrator of contracting Co is just that an
administrator, acting like the lawyer who only does what she has
been instructed to do by the PRT. With the PRT being the
multistakeholders of ICANN and perhaps beyond that we are used to
, but unfettered by the ability of the Board to overrule their
decisions. And the PRT being awoken periodically and whenever the
CSC felt there was a crisis for them to handle. <br>
<br>
You seem to have an issue with them not being a standing
committee. The reason for that is to avoid them becoming ICANN
like and acquiring new functions because they were bored when they
had nothing else to do. Standing committees with nothing to do,
find new stuff to do. Hence the CSC as an alarm to bring them
into existence whenever necessary out of period.<br>
<br>
</div><span class="">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
I think that using the transition to force accountability with
respect to
policy IS out of scope. But I also think that SOME transition
models will
have the incidental benefit of better policy-making
accountability.</blockquote>
<br></span>
It is not out of scope with forcing accountability for IANA. A
periodic RFP is repsnsible for forcing IANA accountability whether
it is at ICANN or elsewhere. And IANA accountability is in our
charter.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
</font></span></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>