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

Mon Dec 1 19:09:31 UTC 2014

Bertrand,

Every time someone has tried to demonstrate that there is an MoU that is
signed by a body that is not a legal entity, the result has been the same.
Voila -- a legal entity pops up on the agreement.

Avri pointed out that ISOC (which is a legal entity) signed the IETF MoU

The ICANN/NRO MoU was signed by each of the RIRs (which are legal entities).

The W3C website says "In administrative terms: W3C is administered via a
joint agreement among these "Host Institutions": MIT
<http://www.csail.mit.edu/>, ERCIM  <http://www.ercim.org/>, Keio University
<http://www.keio.ac.jp/>, and Beihang University <http://ev.buaa.edu.cn/>."
 Elsewhere in the site it says "W3C is a contractual entity arising from
agreements between the "Host institutions" and W3C Members."  W3C Member
Agreements are signed by the host universities and by the member.  So
again, all the contracts are between legal entities.  The Joint Agreement
doesn't appear to be publicly available (at least not easily findable), but
I am quite confident that my conclusions are correct -- where the W3C
appears to enter into a contract, it is actually the host institutions on
the agreement.

In sum, contracting is linked indisputably with some sort of legal entity
(of which corporations is a major type, along with partnerships -- both in
various types -- and other entities recognized as legal entities).

Greg

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle <
bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.com
> twitter @IJurisdiction <https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction> |
> @bdelachapelle <https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle>mobile +33 (0)6 11 88
> 33 32www.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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>

-- 

*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 <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> *

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141201/9f13073c/attachment-0001.html>