[CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.

Sat Nov 29 05:27:51 UTC 2014

No, not just Olivier...

On November 29, 2014 12:12:35 AM EST, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>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
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20141129/712138d3/attachment-0001.html>