[CWG-Stewardship] Question re fiduciary duties and separation

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Look at how long it took for the NTIA to have a rebid.  And there is
nothing in the separation function that prohibits doing a bid at a point
in the process.  In fact it is quite specific about a bid and the
possibility the the current PTO could bid again.

My hope though, is that just the act of getting the machinery cranked
up, would be enough of a threat to cause ICANN to try to fix any
problem.  But if it didn't, I predict it would take about as long as it
took the NTIA, with its call for comments on how to do it &c.  We also
have to take into account the reactions and actions from Numbers and
Protocols at the time of any separation preparation - that would take
some time.  I think the reference solution strikes the balance between
changing over too easily and not being able to change over at all.

avri




On 31-Aug-15 22:17, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter
>
> I keep coming back to the status quo. At the moment, the USG can
> reassign the functions. We need to be careful that, given there is a
> principle of separability, it isn't rendered inoperable by the CWG's
> proposal through this matter.
>
>  
>
> Frankly, I think the current proposal comes very close to rendering
> separability inoperable. While separation is theoretically possible,
> it suffers from the absence of the basic notion of competitive
> bidding. As one journalist (Kieren McCarthy) put it, “There are no
> less than 10 steps that have to go through seven different committees.
> Two of those committees have to be specially created and the process
> requires super majority votes from the two main supporting
> organizations not once but twice.”  The process is essentially
> designed to avoid change and keep it in PTI/ICANN’s hands in all but
> the most exceptional circumstances – and in most of the exceptional
> circumstances one could imagine a process this slow and complex would
> be practically useless. The basic idea of a renewable contract has
> been buried by a mound of steaming….committees and reviews. The CWG
> lost sight of the basic question they should have been answering,
> which is: “how can we keep the contractor honest and the process of
> RZF editing maximally efficient by making the possibility of the IFO’s
> replacement real?”
>
>  
>
> My two cents
>
> --MM
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus