[CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.

Sat Nov 29 05:12:35 UTC 2014

Just for the record... It wasn't only Olivier that was of the opinion that
we did not look at other options. However I have observed that the "who"
(by individual or stakeholder) is saying what is given more preference in
considering comments/contributions in this process.

I rest my case for now.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 29 Nov 2014 08:23, "Guru Acharya" <gurcharya at gmail.com> wrote:

> I quite like the current form of the proposal and feel we are headed in
> the right direction.
>
> That said, I can understand why Olivier is upset.
>
> We started off with three strawman proposals, which were modular and mix
> and match, leading to an endless number of permutations to be discussed in
> Frankfurt.
>
> The discussion in Frankfurt started on a good constructive note wherein
> there appeared to be immediate consensus that IANA should stay in ICANN;
> eliminating the modular aspects of Strawman 2 & 3 that represented IANA as
> a subsidiary and IANA as an independent corporation.
>
> Then we came to the discussion of the Oversight Body and there appeared to
> be somewhat of a prolonged disagreement/holdout.
>
> After a break, the coordinators completely abandoned the Strawman approach
> and adopted a new approach, which everybody was slightly unprepared for.
> This approach was to understand and list down the functions that NTIA
> performs. This eventually turned into an exercise of faithfully replicating
> the functions that NTIA performs. Replicating the NTIA functions eventually
> led to the creation of a PRT, CSC and finally the Contract Co for holding
> the IANA contract (that NTIA currently holds).
>
> People slowly started realising that an exercise to faithfully replicate
> NTIA automatically eliminates options that diverge from the NTIA model. For
> example, the non-contractual model that Olivier seems to be arguing in
> favour of, or the trust-like model that Avri argued for, or the model that
> Bertrand now suggests, would naturally be eliminated from the discussion.
>
> By this time it was the last RFP3 session of the last day of the
> conference. Participants did object to the creation of Contract Co in the
> followup sessions on the way ahead. These objections were tackled by saying
> nothing in final and everything is open to change.
>
> I can therefore understand why Olivier is up in arms when he now hears
> that the Contract Co is final.
>
> Funny are the ways of a multi-stakeholder process. In this case, mostly
> driven by lack of time.
>
> Please forgive me if my reading of Frankfurt is shallow. I am not pointing
> fingers. Given the lack of time that we have had, I think Frankfurt was
> handled exceptionally well. And I reiterate that I feel that the current
> proposal is headed in the right direction. I'm just glad i'm not on the
> other side of the argument.
>
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> wrote:
>
>>  Greg,
>>
>> again, did we ever consider an alternative to creating a corporation?
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>>
>> On 29/11/2014 00:32, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>
>>  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/>*
>>
>>
>> --
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141129/3bb0f114/attachment.html>