[CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel

[Gomes, Chuck]

Paul,

Are you saying then that ICA would not be incorporated?  I am not advocating for Contract Co. but it seems to me that it would be very thin so it is not clear that empire building could happen.  Where the empire building would seem to more likely is with regard to who controls Contract Co. or ICA.  Who would control ICA?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 9:57 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel

The ICA concept and MoU with ICANN provides less opportunity for empire building (as its scope can be pre-defined) and also less of a legal target than an incorporated Contract Co.

It is more akin to the structure that the RIRs have with the NRO and ICANN, which has proven to be fit for purpose.

The goal being to explore all option and give feedback to our respective communities as to what has been explored and the best way(s) forward.

Best

Paul

Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>:

> Paul,
> 
> In terms of requesting legal advice, how would ICA differ from Contract Co.?
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 3:40 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel
> 
> Thanks Greg
> 
> May I also suggest a 3rd option..... 
> 
> I understand Contract Co (but fear it may become far too complicated 
> for a simple task); I understand internal to ICANN (but feat too many 
> functions at a centralised ICANN subject to capture, manipulation with 
> limited ways to guaranteeing quality of service).
> 
> May I propose an Internet Community Association (ICA).
> 
> The ICA could be a light weight, with a specific very limited purpose 
> to award the IANA Root Zone Management MoU to that entity that can 
> best serve technical requirements of the Registry operators (ccTLDs and gTLDs).
> 
> It is assumed that the current IANA operator will be the first party 
> to be awarded the IANA MoU and should the current operator (ab)use its 
> position to the detriment of one or more Registry Operators (as 
> determined by X (CSC, MRT, external party) then such determination 
> will trigger a process to find a new IANA Root Zone Management.
> 
> Best
> 
> Paul   
> 
> Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>:
> 
> > It looks pretty good to me Greg.  We could certainly ask more 
> > questions but I think this is a good start and you left the door 
> > open for more questions.  If you havenââ,¬â"¢t already done it, I 
> > think you should have Sam evaluate whether she thinks it provides 
> > enough information for us to move forward.  Any potential legal 
> > experts will of
> course of more questions.
> > 
> > The edits I proposed are all very minor.
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
> > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:24 PM
> > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel
> > 
> > 
> > All:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Attached is a draft scope document intended to refine our request 
> > for independent legal counsel.  Your comments would be most 
> > appreciated at the soonest time.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Greg
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>