[CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

On 28/11/2014 16:36, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *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”
>

This is not at all how I understood it. The discussion on whether the
"contracting entity" should be a contract co. or something else has
never been touched - certainly no alternatives have been seriously
considered.

>  
>
> 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.
>

The configuration of the Contract Co. has not been discussed either. We
know what functions should be undertaken and what broad characteristics
would be needed. No discussion of jurisdiction nor configuration of the
entity has been done except on RFP4 call today where we started to touch
on it.

Kind regards,

Olivier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141129/8cd780e8/attachment.html>