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

[Bertrand de La Chapelle]

Sorry to insist, my legal background may be lacking, but:

1) I am sure that the W3C, while not incorporated, signed its "host
agreements" with three universities. So, contracting may not be linked so
indisputably with formal incorporation.

2) the ccNSO and the gNSO are structures within ICANN for the purpose of
policy-making and in that regard under the ICANN Board for validation.
However, they do perform other useful functions for the respective
communities without having to refer to the ICANN Board. as a matter of
fact, a lot in the ccNSO relates to internal issues.

Nothing would prevent in my view conferring them with a specific role
regarding the IANA function, that would not be subject to the Board
validation, should we collectively decide to follow that route.

This would seem to me much more bottom up and distributed that creating a
single new, different structure for the sole purpose of contracting, with
the concerns that some people have. Aren't we too unimaginatively trying to
mimic the currant arrangement?

After all, we have not discussed in detail (or I missed it) the composition
of the PRT, but my guess is that it would leverage such existing
structures. So why not explore doing it also for the agreement part?

B.



"*Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes*", Antoine de
Saint Exupéry
("*There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans*")BERTRAND DE
LA CHAPELLEInternet & Jurisdiction Project | Directoremail
bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.netemail bdelachapelle at gmail.comtwitter
@IJurisdiction <https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction> | @bdelachapelle
<https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle>mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
www.internetjurisdiction.net[image: A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE
PROCESS]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>  hi,
>
> GNSO and ccNSO have no ability to sign a contract with anyone, they are
> just parts of ICANN and ICANn cannot sign a contract with itself.
>
> The contracting authority for IANA must be outside ICANN and it must be an
> entity that is capable of signing a contract.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 01-Dec-14 17:13, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141201/89d09295/attachment.html>