[CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.

[Seun Ojedeji]

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 1 Dec 2014 19:34, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Olivier:
>
> An MoU is a contract, which does need legal entities to enter into it.
An SLA is an agreement, which does need legal entities to enter into it.
>
I think the main point is that SLA can generally be referenced by an MOU
and yes both need some legal entities to activate it.

So the community define it's SLA and then an MOU refers it with other
details of what happens if the SLA is not meet.

Cheers!

> C'est la vie.
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
wrote:
>>
>> 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> 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
>>>
>>> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>
>>> www.lawabel.com
>>
>>
>> --
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
> www.lawabel.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141201/436a3bb5/attachment.html>