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

[Seun Ojedeji]

As we continue in this contracting route, i think we should remember 2
things:

- ICANN is home for gTLD and because it was handled by contract in the past
does not mean it should continue that way so i would expect this process to
think of how it solidifies on the mechanisms within ICANN instead of always
making the organisation's goals circle around contracting terms
- ICANN has built a highly diverse multi-stakeholder environment and we
should leverage on that by providing mechanisms that will energise it.

Cheers!


On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>  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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141201/4f1b84fa/attachment-0001.html>