<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thanks for this Greg and thanks to Paul for the suggestion. <br>
I know that time is of the essence and a resource that nobody
appears to have enough of, but a diagram (even very simple, perhaps
drawn by hand & scanned) would help in our understanding.<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/04/2015 07:41, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURdN1huKoDJ_7kK3ionVNcXkEBABgG+tgQMgcdd8zrgXQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Paul Kane among others
has suggested a variation on the current "internal" models.
Rather than quashing it, I thought it was proper to give it
appropriate consideration. As Paul is traveling, I thought I
would put this together so that it could be given such
consideration. <br>
<br>
For the sake of convenience, I'm calling it the "Reverse
Hybrid Model."<br>
<br>
In this model, ICANN would still be the source of the right to
perform the IANA Functions, as in the current internal model.
However, ICANN would enter into an irrevocable agreement with
the Affiliate for the IANA Functions. Rather than having the
right to perform the IANA Functions itself, the Affiliate
would be given the right to contract for an entity to act as
IANA Functions Operator. (Thus, the Affiliate would be set up
as a supervisor, not as an operator.) Initially (but not
perpetually), that subcontracted entity would be ICANN, the
current IANA Functions Operator. However, the Affiliate would
have the option, under the circumstances designated by the
CWG, to separate the performance of the IANA Functions from
ICANN (e.g., by issuing an RFP and enter into an agreement
with a third party).<br>
<br>
As with the current internal models, ICANN Corporate would be
the only member of the Affiliate. The multi-stakeholder
community would (s)elect the independent Board of the
Affiliate, which would have a limited (and defined) scope.<br>
<br>
It may appear that ICANN is granting a right to itself,
through the Affiliate. However, the key is that the Affiliate
would have the oversight and stewardship responsibility over
the IANA Functions, by exercising the rights and powers it has
under the agreement with the IANA Functions Operator. In
other words, the Affiliate would be the contractor with
oversight of ICANN-as-IANA Functions Operator, and would also
have the right to exercise escalation rights, up to and
including issuing an RFP and potentially a contract to a third
party if the designated triggers warranted it. The CSC and
the PRT would be activities of the Affiliate, created by
bylaws of the Affiliate, with a multistakeholder board
providing oversight over the CSC and the PRT and ultimately
over the IANA Functions Operator (initially, ICANN-as-IANA).
<br>
<br>
Under the irrevocable agreement, ICANN would retain
"ownership" of the IANA Function Operator rights but the
Affiliate would (irrevocably) hold the right to subcontract
for the performance of those services. Although ICANN would
be the only member, we would need to insure that its rights as
the member to override the Board were as limited as possible.<br>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
While this does not structurally separate the IANA Function
operations from the rest of ICANN, it does separate the
stewardship and the decision-making rights regarding the
performance of the operations from ICANN. As with the
second option under the current hybrid proposal, there would
be functional separation of the IANA Function operations
from the rest of ICANN. <br>
<br>
While structural separation of the IANA Functions operations
does make a certain kind of future total separation easier
(spinning off the current IANA Functions Operator within
ICANN), this is really the less likely form of total
separation. The more likely form of total separation would
be the selection of a new IANA Functions Operator, and that
right would be structurally separated from ICANN. <br>
<br>
More importantly from an operational perspective, the
oversight and stewardship over the operations of the IANA
Functions would be structurally separated from ICANN. It
would be firmly in the CSC, the PRT and the multistakeholder
board. This would be the primary job of the Affiliate,
putting service accountability front and center. Yet, it
does not slight separability.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I believe this
proposal has sufficient merit to warrant due consideration.
One of the reasons we have engaged Sidley is so that we
can understand the viability and desirability of various
models and mechanisms (and so I and other don't have to
"play lawyer"). In that spirit, I am forwarding this model
to both the CCWG and the Client Committee so that this
"Reverse Hybrid" model can be appropriately considered.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Speak to you all in a
few hours, as dawn rises over New York City.<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">
<div class="">
<div id=":27k" class="" tabindex="0"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" class=""
src="https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif"></div>
</div>
<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
</font></span></div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Kind regards to both<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
Paul<br>
</font></span><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gih.com/ocl.html">http://www.gih.com/ocl.html</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>