[CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.

[Greg Shatan]

Olivier,

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the "configuration" of Contract Co.
We certainly have discussed the "form" the entity would take, i.e., a
nonprofit corporation.  Place of incorporation has not been significantly
discussed in recent days, though we had a number of email exchanges and
some discussion of jurisdiction earlier in a variety of contexts.

Greg

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
wrote:

>
> On 28/11/2014 16:36, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> *

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141128/afecf971/attachment.html>