[CWG-Stewardship] My concerns with the draft proposal and an alternative option

[Alan Greenberg]

Thanks Guru.

My concerns regarding acceptability by the USG and integratability 
were just that - concerns, and I was not looking for explicit 
answers. Just raising flags.

I do not believe that my concerns with the PRT have all been 
addressed. When I know who convenes it, who funds it, who protects it 
(and its members), who ensures that it IS in fact MS, all in the 
possible absence of ICANN from the entire picture, I may consider 
those questions no longer important.

Alan

At 01/12/2014 11:39 AM, Guru Acharya wrote:
>I think most of Alan's concerns about integratability with other 
>proposals, acceptability by USG, nature of PRT etc have been 
>addressed by multiple people.
>
>What remains un-answered are Alan's concerns about (i) Contract Co 
>becoming a target for litigation; (ii) source of funding of Contract 
>Co; (iii) jurisdiction of Contract Co; and (iv) accountability of Contract Co.
>
>I agree that these are substantial concerns.
>
>The Contract Co can be the subject of litigation for multiple 
>reasons including wrongful termination of a IANA contract; or any 
>cause of action related to a failed bid for a IANA contract. It can 
>also be reasonable to assume that Contract Co will be made a party 
>to all cases that are against ICANN in the future. For example, a 
>case similar to the recent 'Iran/Iraq ccTLD as attachable property' 
>will definitely make Contract Co a respondent along with ICANN.
>
>Therefore, Contract Co will need a substantial litigation war chest. 
>There will also be substantial costs involved in contract drafting; 
>negotiation; preparation of RFPs etc. This needs to be addressed. 
>Greg suggested the possibility of a litigation indemnification 
>mechanism. A mechanism to deal with unforeseen non-litigation 
>expenses should also be explored.
>
>@Allan & Olivier: What accountability mechanisms do you suggest 
>should be built into the Contract Co by-laws?
>
>
>On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Avri Doria 
><<mailto:avri at acm.org>avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>On 01-Dec-14 17:02, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>But my main reason for opposition is that I am far from convinced 
>>that all of the questions I and others have can be viably answered.
>
>As far as I can tell they have been answered.  You just have not 
>accepted the answers you have been given.
>which is of course your right.  But from my reading they have been 
>answered multiple times in different ways.
>
>My answer invovled the parallel with the  BCP 101 from the IETF. 
>where the administrator of contracting Co is just that an 
>administrator, acting like the lawyer who only does what she has 
>been instructed to do by the PRT.  With the PRT being the 
>multistakeholders of ICANN and perhaps beyond that we are used to , 
>but unfettered by the ability of the Board to overrule their 
>decisions. And the PRT being awoken periodically and whenever the 
>CSC felt there was a crisis for them to handle.
>
>You seem to have an issue with them not being a standing 
>committee.  The reason for that is to avoid them becoming ICANN like 
>and acquiring new functions because they were bored when they had 
>nothing else to do. Standing committees with nothing to do, find new 
>stuff to do.  Hence the CSC as an alarm to bring them into existence 
>whenever necessary out of period.
>
>>
>>I think that using the transition to force accountability with 
>>respect to policy IS out of scope. But I also think that SOME 
>>transition models will have the incidental benefit of better 
>>policy-making accountability.
>
>It is not out of scope with forcing accountability for IANA.  A 
>periodic RFP is repsnsible for forcing IANA accountability whether 
>it is at ICANN or elsewhere.  And IANA accountability is in our charter.
>
>avri
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>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/f433a8fe/attachment.html>