[CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Dear Greg,

for the record, my understanding was like Alan's.
There was specific mention of a "Committee". The "Service Level
Agreement" could be part of a MoU which does not need legal entities
like a formal contract.

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 01/12/2014 07:35, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Alan:
>
> Strawman 1 was not an "internal to ICANN" proposal.  The part that you
> quote refers to the IANA Functions Operator remaining ICANN.  That
> does not make it an internal to ICANN approach.  The current proposal
> also leaves ICANN as the IANA Functions Operator.  By that measure,
> the current proposal is just as much "internal to ICANN."
>
> An "internal to ICANN" approach would be one where there was no
> external entity (legal or otherwise involved) and oversight,
> accountability and all of the other roles currently performed by NTIA
> are performed by bodies internal to ICANN.
>
> You go on to say that there was "clearly no other entity holding the
> contract."  This is incorrect.  I draw your attention to the section
> "Documentation to Replace NTIA Contract," which reads:
>
> _Service Level Agreement_.  The OPRC and ICANN will enter into a
> Service Level Agreement for the performance of the technical and
> administrative IANA functions.  The SLA would run for an initial term
> of three years and would be renewed upon the agreement of the OPRC and
> the IANA Functions Operator.
>
> A "Service Level Agreement" is a form of contract -- so there is
> clearly a contract.  And it states that the "OPRC and ICANN will enter
> into" this contact.  So there is clearly an "other entity" holding the
> contract.
>
> You also state that the OPRC is an "internal committee." This is also
> incorrect.  The section on legal status of OPRC states "_Legal
> Status_.  The OPRC will be a committee rather than a separate
> incorporated entity.  [The committee may be considered an
> “unincorporated association,” and will be domiciled in [California or
> the U.S. or Switzerland or some other place] to the extent that the
> committee has a legal identity.]."  Nowhere does this state or even
> imply that the OPRC is an ICANN Committee.  Indeed the fact that there
> is a discussion of domicile and that OPRC will enter into an agreement
> with ICANN can only lead to the conclusion that the OPRC is external
> ICANN.
>
> I stand by my earlier statement -- I don't think an "internal to
> ICANN" proposal was ever put on the table within the group prior to
> Frankfurt in any kind of tangible, concrete fashion.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Alan Greenberg
> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
>
>     I have to disagree.
>
>>     *Strawman Proposal 1*
>>
>>     *4 Status of IANA Functions Operator
>>     *
>>     a _Division of ICANN_.  The IANA Functions Operator will remain a
>>     division of ICANN.
>>
>>     b _Enhanced Separability_.  ICANN will maintain the current
>>     separation between ICANN and IANA, and will make the IANA
>>     Functions Operator more easily separable from ICANN, if
>>     separation becomes necessary at some future time.
>
>     There was a "Review Committee" but clearly no other entity holding
>     the contract. Strawman 1 did, nonsensically, posit that the
>     internal committee could initiate an RFP. for a "new" operator,
>     but this too confirmed the the "old" operator was ICANN.
>
>     The references to an oversight "mechanism" also alluded to
>     something other than an external contract-holding entity.
>
>     Alan
>
>     At 30/11/2014 01:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>     Frankly, I don't think an "internal to ICANN" proposal was ever
>>     put on the table within the group prior to Frankfurt in any kind
>>     of tangible, concrete fashion.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> *Gregory S. Shatan **ï** **Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *666 Third Avenue **ï** New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> */gsshatan at lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>/*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> *
>
> */www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141201/ded7bc98/attachment.html>