[CWG-Stewardship] Last part of chat -- thought it would be helpful to put out in real time.

[Greg Shatan]

Seun: I am glad with how this session is taking shape...lots of myths has
been unmasked. Thanks

Jordan Carter: Sure have, Seun.

Jordan Carter: The great merit of independent counsel is that they'll say
what they think without any baggage

Brenden Kuerbis:  Yeah!

Jordan Carter: They are also better at simplifying and avoiding FUD better
than people with an interest in the outcome

Seun: It is my hope that we will determine scope of work here, by focusing
on internal solution

Seun: have to go for today...we followed up with the transcript

Seun: thanks to the co-chairs and entire cwg

Lise Fuhr: Bye Seun have a nice evening

James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: bye seun

Avri Doria: what they have done, in a way, is give us a kits of various
piece parts we can combine in the solution that suits the consensus best.
We now know we can do it, just have to find the right slection to hit as
many of our perceived needs as possible.

Jonathan Robinson: Thanks Seun

Matthew Shears: what's important is finding the solution that works best
for this and the broader community and DNS stabiltiy etc.

Matthew Shears: + 1 Avri
 -------------- (03/26/2015 11:41) --------------
Jordan Carter: I don't know why we would need to indemnify members as
members

Jordan Carter: indemnity applies to governors - the directors

Robin Gross: In an ICANN bankruptcy, could members be liable?

Jordan Carter: Avri: the trick is going to be ordering our needs, and
understanding the tradeoffs in doing so. Thats' what my first question
tried to suss out. Maybe badly.

Jordan Carter: Don't incorporated bodies have limited liability in the
United States?

Jordan Carter: they certainly do in NZ
 -------------- (03/26/2015 11:51) --------------
Jordan Carter: Chris has just said something very interesting - that the
stewardship should sit with ICANN, and this is more important than who
operates the IANA functions.

Matthew Shears: I don't think accountability to the community would be lost
through the hybrid model

Matthew Shears: if that were to occur
 -------------- (03/26/2015 11:56) --------------
Jordan Carter: This conversation is getting very complicated.

Brenden Kuerbis: I think you vest the ability to seat the affiliate IANA
board with the "community". And you give the ICANN (and possibly the RIRs,
IETF) contract with affiliate IANA?
 -------------- (03/26/2015 11:58) --------------
Matthew Shears: yes - if IANA team A were not performing you could replace
some of the personnel in it or replace it in whole

Avri Doria: well we have already narrowed by talking both Internal and
External Trusts off the table.

Avri Doria: i do not think functional is enough without drawing the lines
and creating a legal entity.  we allegedly have functiona separation now
and that is a fantasy.

Matthew Shears: + 1 Avri
 -------------- (03/26/2015 12:03) --------------
jorge cancio GAC: the question is who can trigger the catapult in an
internal option?

Jordan Carter: One could add a layer to my thing - RZO
 -------------- (03/26/2015 12:04) --------------
Jordan Carter: (root zone operation)

Jordan Carter: because actually at the moment, ICANN *does* "contract out"
the operation of the root zone

Jordan Carter: it instructs the operator, and we agreed today that the
check / authorisation function in between those two layers can go

Jordan Carter: I hope everyone understands from today's chat that THERE ARE
NO SIMPLE MODELS. :-|

Avri Doria: there are no real spearations betwee ICANN and IANA now. sam
human resources, same budget, same offices, ...

James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: +1 Jordan

Jordan Carter: Avri: my point was that IANA doesn't operate the root

Avri Doria: iana isn't even as separate as GDD

Jordan Carter: It's funny. In Singapore 2014, we (.nz) proposed a strong
separation of IANA would be a good thing -- we got rubbished.

Jordan Carter: C'est la vie I spose :)

Avri Doria: we supported you.

Matthew Shears: yep

Jordan Carter: It still helps in lots of ways, whether structural or
functional

Jordan Carter: but it doesn't deal with "who the steward is" - and tbh that
question seems like the hardest part

Jordan Carter: (functional is ''better'' in not creating yet another
entity...)

Chris Disspain: Jordan, if the community has good accountbaility mechanisms
in ICANN can we not agree that the community ti the steward THROUGH ICANN?

Jordan Carter: oh yes, that's the ICANN 3.0 that would be the precondition
of ICANN as steward :-)

Chris Disspain: Well arent we effectively making ICANN 3 in ccwg?

Jordan Carter: Absolutely

Chris Disspain: Jordan, who is the steward of .nz?

Jordan Carter: InternetNZ is - under New Zealand law

Chris Disspain: and the tech operator?

Jordan Carter: NZRS, a wholly owned subsidiary company.

Chris Disspain: exactly

Jordan Carter: InternetNZ is a membership based organisatin - the members
are sovereign, and are part of the local Internet community - so we have
the 3.0 thing in place already

Chris Disspain: agree

Jordan Carter: the Internet community organises through our structure and
changes the domain if required.

Chris Disspain: yup

Jordan Carter: If that set of relationships was the same in ICANN, there
wouldn't be a provlem here to fix... :-)

Chris Disspain: so if we can put in plae the new shiny accountability
mechanisms then we're OK aren't we?

Jordan Carter: Chris, in Clinton's immortal words, it all depends on the
meaning of "the".

Brenden Kuerbis: but deisgning accoutnability for policy making , and
designing accoutnability for just IANA functions two totally different
exercises

Avri Doria: i think that is we put our minds to finding the compromise
point tomorrow, we could make great progress.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: been a very productive day though.  but agree with
@chris

Jordan Carter: A compromise point or a narrowing to fewer options

Avri Doria: Jordan, as an alternative to finding a draft solution, that
would be second best.

Matthew Shears: we don't have 3.0 and won't have it until the shiny new
accountbaility are proven Chris

Konstantinos Komaitis: yes it would be good if tomorrow we can start
categorizing the various proposals under their legal standing: easy,
complex, more complex, very complex, etc.
 -------------- (03/26/2015 12:16) --------------
Konstantinos Komaitis: or something along those lines
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150326/18071b95/attachment.html>