[CWG-Stewardship] My concerns with the draft proposal and an alternative option

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Dear Guru,

thank you for your kind follow-up and for your clear summary of the
discussion.
My answers in-line:

On 30/11/2014 13:54, Guru Acharya wrote:
> Olivier,
>
> I think arguing about the dictionary definition of entities is not
> very constructive at this stage. Greg only wants to point out that for
> a Contracting Entity to enter into a contract, the said entity needs
> to have a legal existence.

I am not disputing this. What I am disputing is that we have not
considered other kinds of process or structure that would be suitable,
or whether the replacement for NTIA's pull out of its function needs a
contracting structure as such. The online discussions we have had
recently have gone much further than any prior discussion and that's good.

> The other three entities (PRT,CSC, IAP) do not need to enter into a
> contract and therefore do not need legal existence. Not-for-profit
> company is how some of us think that legal existence can be
> operationalised for the Contracting Entity because such a
> not-for-profit company does not have owners, promoters or shareholders
> in the traditional sense. If you are suggesting another method of
> operationalising the legal existence I think everyone is open ears. In
> my opinion, a "trust" is not how that legal existence can be
> operationalised in the present context.
>
> From what I understand there are two strong "non-negotiable" beliefs
> that exist in this CWG:
> 1) First belief is that an external IANA contract is essential for
> accountability.
> 2) Second belief is that the creation of a new legal entity with
> growth dynamics similar to that of ICANN is not acceptable.
>
> I think you and some other at-large are coming from the second belief.

I would say that there are two points of view but I would summarise
number 2 as "Second belief is that the creation of a new legal entity
with growth dynamics similar to ICANN might not necessarily provide
better accountability than the current ICANN".

In short, today I am not convinced that any new entity will be more
accountable than ICANN and I would like it explained to me why and how
this new entity will be more accountable and to whom. I fear there may
be a case of recursive accountability.

>
> The current proposal attempts to make a very good balance between the
> two beliefs. And maybe we can work towards making the component of the
> proposal that operationalises the second belief even stronger.
> Currently, the Contract Co is made to look
> dull/boring/unattractive/growth-less by delegating everything of
> importance to the PRT. The Contract Co will only hold the contract
> while the PRT will do the actual work. We hope that this will stub the
> potential growth of Contract Co.
>
> Maybe a constructive way forward is to suggest how the Contract Co can
> be made even more dull/boring/growth-less than presently envisioned.
>
> Or you could take the un-constructive way forward and continue arguing
> that the first belief should not be incorporated in the proposal at all.

I find the discussion we are having here very constructive, save a few
repeated arguments. But I am yet to be convinced by any facts, short of
promises of the creation of a new dull/boring/unattractive organisation
(possibly two in fact, since the Periodic Review Team may also be an
Entity in the legal sense) that would be *more* accountable to the
multistakeholder community than ICANN, an organisation that is about to
undergo a full boost on accountability thanks to the CCWG on
Accountability. If someone can convince me that they can build a more
accountable organisation, please show me and I'll be ever so happy to
support (1).
A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

Kind regards,

Olivier