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

[Holly Raiche]

Greg, Avri and Everyone

On the Contract Co issue, we did manage to get its size down to that of a shelf company, a skeleton for the MRT. But somewhere in there, discussion has raised the issue of suing/being sued- in which case Contract Co will have to have an existence larger than that or a mere shelf company.  So I think we’re back a few paces, although heading in the right direction.  But the larger the Contract Co, the more urgent the ‘Who Pays’ question becomes.

If we don’t want Contract Co to have a life (and significant funds) of its own, but largely be a vehicle for the MRT, then we need to think through why we need more than a shelf company/if we need more than a shelf company.  Bertrand’s stress tests and discussion about MoUs and SLAs have been very useful in that regard.

And a reminder - enforceability is often through legal processes.  But it can often be through processes of regulators as well.  So again, we need to think beyond legal paradigms for possible answers.

Holly


On 2 Dec 2014, at 10:43 am, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> On 01-Dec-14 20:25, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> a few of us were talking about this evening over Eurodig drings and over dinner.
> 
> I have come to believe the the MRT is really the ICANN Community as we know + others, but instead of sending its decisions to the Board for blessing it sends its decision to the Contract Co. for execution.
> 
> That is certainly the intent, in my mind. And I expect the details to be consistent with that general statement, as they get filled in.
> 
> It has been obvious for a while that the ICANN community and  ICANN Corporate are separate. So I have no trouble imagining that for the purposes of the MRT we organize what is essentially the stakeholders invovled in the ICANN community + some other parts of the Internet community into the MRT. Pretty much exactly just as we done with the ICG.
> 
> As for who pays for the whole sructure we are talking about, it should be the IANA contractor, ICANN at this point, as part of its zero cost support of the IANA function.  The only thing that seems like it may require outside funding is the RFP/rebid process.  And for that we just follow the example we have been taught by ICANN Corporate and Contract Co. charges the applicants for the IANA contract an application fee sufficient for the process to be, as they say, cost neutral.
> 
> I think these are excellent suggestions. 
> 
> So it is not within ICANN, but it is formed by the ICANN Community with others.
> 
> That is how I hope for it to be.  But we'll need to make our way there, in terms of details.
> 
> Greg 
> 
> 
> avri
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 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/20141202/dbe4699e/attachment.html>