[CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.

[Milton L Mueller]

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle

Is the idea of a contract Co. a done deal? Establishing any organization with whatever limited staff is usually a recipe for its growth in time.

MM: The idea that there should be a contracting entity separate from ICANN is, I believe, a done deal. It reflects some of the principles we agreed on (such as separability) and the general agreement that, as the draft proposal says,
“The current arrangements provided by the NTIA for the oversight and accountability of the IANA Functions are generally satisfactory and the objective of the CWG is to replicate these as faithfully as possible”

MM: On the other hand, whether the specific configuration of the Contract Co. is optimal for achieving those purposes could still be open. I would say is still open to _modification_; any modification that accomplishes the agreed objectives but avoids any problems that might arise would be welcomed by the CWG I imagine.

Is the option of having separate complementary contracts by the different users of the IANA functions off the table?

MM: By “different users of the IANA functions” do you mean the names, protocols and numbers users? If so I would admonish you again to stick to the knitting of this group, which is focused on names. We are not holistically redesigning the IANA arrangements we are focused on the names part exclusively.

If by “different users” you mean ccTLDs and gTLDs, it would be possible for this group to contemplate that, but I would not recommend that at this late stage, but because the names root needs to be integrated and because such as drastic change in approach would bust the schedule at this point.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141128/72abf6d1/attachment.html>