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

[Seun Ojedeji]

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 1 Dec 2014 16:57, "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.
>
Honestly at this point I think something is not clear here. Can you confirm
if this PRT is within ICANN or not because your message above is implying
outside. The second question is, what are the "IANA operation" related
issues that ICANN board could say no to? and how is the accountability
track fixing/addressing that.

> That is the primary Capture Entity we need to concern ourselves with:
ICANN Corporate.
>
Well it will become 2 if the PRT is introduced and the PRT could be more
complicated. I will also note that the possibility of ICANN corporate being
captured is becoming less probable. So we should not in fear of the
improbable create another monster structure that will comes back to hunt us
all.

Cheers!

> 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/20141201/9697aa0d/attachment.html>