[CWG-Stewardship] Do we really need a Contracting Co.?

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

On 01-Dec-14 12:54, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> 1) IETF has a MoU with ICANN, but unless I am mistaken (and I can very
> well be), it is not incorporated. I don't remember if the NRO has a
> similar arrangement, but I do not think it is incorporated either.
> Doesn't this open the possibility of arrangements without having to
> create a Contract Co., with all the recursive accountability and
> jurisdiction concerns we discussed?

I do not see Company Co. as having recursive accountabilty issues as it
reports to the PRT and is only an administror as indicated analogously
in BCP101.  Which shows such arrangements are possible.

But if we do accept the notion that ICANN does not hold the function in
perpetuity, and I don't such a iCANN forever proposal could reach
consensus, then there has to be someone to hold that contract in 'trust'
for for the Internet community.

In the IETF situation, as BCP 101 indicated, all contracts are actually
held by ISOC in trust for the Internet community.  Maybe we can ask ISOC
to hold the contract for us as well instead and avoid the need for the
Contract Co. Personally I would trust ISOC to stand up ICANN and they
have shown over the years that they know how to do only that which the
IETF, or in our case the PRT, instructs them to do in a bottom up way. 
I am still fine with creating our own contracting holding entity, but I
am also fine with asking ISOC to serve as that entity,hence avoiding the
creation of a new corporate entity.  So, no we don't need a Contracting
Co, though we  do need someone to hold the contract in 'trust' for the
community.

On another topic, it concerns me that our draft document seems to have
buried the notion of the periodic RFP.  RFP is listed on page 30, but
Annex 3 seems to avoid mention at all.  and even in section 3, there is
no notion of a periodic RFC, just the fact that there can be one.  I
believe that without a peridoic RFP for the IANA contract there can be
no accountability for the IANA function at ICANN or anywhere else for
that matter - and this is not something that can be remedied by the CCSG
Accountability.  The IETF and the RIRs can walk away from ICANN if they
are ever unhappy.  The Names community needs the ability to move the
IANA contract elsewhere as well.  Whether the contract is held in
'trust' for us by ISOC or Company Co. matters less to me that it be held
externally.

avri


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141201/2cc0af63/attachment.html>