[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 22:18, "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.
>
Okay it's MRT not PRT then... this is noted!

> 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.
>
There is definitely a non-negligible flaw and replication in what you are
proposing Avri, and I like the fact that you are using ICG as an example.
ICG is a group that can only survive for a short while...It's not a
sustainable group. ICG at the moment has not done their main task.. so you
wait and see how that process will look like. I think this is like creating
a new ICANN community and it's a replication of effort, wastage of customer
money and further creation of cabals (which is already existing in the
young ICG).
I also don't understand the view that ICANN community and corporate are
separate. What does that mean? and how is ICANN community different from a
typical RIR community.

> 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.
>
Please when you think of who pays, think of it from the customer
perspective, think of participation, think of the resources that's already
been expended in this current ICG process.

>
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.
>
Oh so the MRT will even be the team to do an RFP process. Well I think this
cwg is just trying to drag us to a more complicated future which I am
definitely opposed to.

> So it is not within ICANN, but it is formed by the ICANN Community with
others.
>
Maybe when we see the details of the formation and the charter of the team
we will better appreciate what we are proposing.

On a lighter note, it's interesting that we will want to put all these
structure just because of a "what if". It's also interesting that we are
not thinking of the possibility of the young MRT being subject to capture.

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/20141202/60d74086/attachment-0001.html>