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

[Bertrand de La Chapelle]

Avri,

I want to clarify. You wrote:

*The problem is that if the ICANN internal multistakeholder community says
A, the ICANN Board can say Not A, and there is NOTHING we can do about it. *



The avenue I am exploring is to empower the ccNSO and the gNSO *as such*
with the capacity to sign an MoU with the chosen IANA contractor (and to
choose it). In that approach, the ICANN Board would NOT be in the loop.

Does that clarify and answer your concern?

B.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
> On 01-Dec-14 16:40, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> - ICANN has built a highly diverse multi-stakeholder environment and we
> should leverage on that by providing mechanisms that will energise it.
>
>
> Indeed the PRT does that.
>
> The problem is that if the ICANN internal multistakeholder community says
> A, the ICANN Board can say Not A, and there is NOTHING we can do about it.
> Thus there needs to be an external entity that the ICANN stakeholder
> environment we have created can directly affect without threat of capture
> by ICANN Corporate.
>
> That is the primary Capture Entity we need to concern ourselves with:
> ICANN Corporate.
>
> avri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141201/72b76aa3/attachment.html>