Dear Guru, thank you for your kind follow-up and for your clear summary of the discussion. My answers in-line: On 30/11/2014 13:54, Guru Acharya wrote:
Olivier,
I think arguing about the dictionary definition of entities is not very constructive at this stage. Greg only wants to point out that for a Contracting Entity to enter into a contract, the said entity needs to have a legal existence.
I am not disputing this. What I am disputing is that we have not considered other kinds of process or structure that would be suitable, or whether the replacement for NTIA's pull out of its function needs a contracting structure as such. The online discussions we have had recently have gone much further than any prior discussion and that's good.
The other three entities (PRT,CSC, IAP) do not need to enter into a contract and therefore do not need legal existence. Not-for-profit company is how some of us think that legal existence can be operationalised for the Contracting Entity because such a not-for-profit company does not have owners, promoters or shareholders in the traditional sense. If you are suggesting another method of operationalising the legal existence I think everyone is open ears. In my opinion, a "trust" is not how that legal existence can be operationalised in the present context.
From what I understand there are two strong "non-negotiable" beliefs that exist in this CWG: 1) First belief is that an external IANA contract is essential for accountability. 2) Second belief is that the creation of a new legal entity with growth dynamics similar to that of ICANN is not acceptable.
I think you and some other at-large are coming from the second belief.
I would say that there are two points of view but I would summarise number 2 as "Second belief is that the creation of a new legal entity with growth dynamics similar to ICANN might not necessarily provide better accountability than the current ICANN". In short, today I am not convinced that any new entity will be more accountable than ICANN and I would like it explained to me why and how this new entity will be more accountable and to whom. I fear there may be a case of recursive accountability.
The current proposal attempts to make a very good balance between the two beliefs. And maybe we can work towards making the component of the proposal that operationalises the second belief even stronger. Currently, the Contract Co is made to look dull/boring/unattractive/growth-less by delegating everything of importance to the PRT. The Contract Co will only hold the contract while the PRT will do the actual work. We hope that this will stub the potential growth of Contract Co.
Maybe a constructive way forward is to suggest how the Contract Co can be made even more dull/boring/growth-less than presently envisioned.
Or you could take the un-constructive way forward and continue arguing that the first belief should not be incorporated in the proposal at all.
I find the discussion we are having here very constructive, save a few repeated arguments. But I am yet to be convinced by any facts, short of promises of the creation of a new dull/boring/unattractive organisation (possibly two in fact, since the Periodic Review Team may also be an Entity in the legal sense) that would be *more* accountable to the multistakeholder community than ICANN, an organisation that is about to undergo a full boost on accountability thanks to the CCWG on Accountability. If someone can convince me that they can build a more accountable organisation, please show me and I'll be ever so happy to support (1). A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. Kind regards, Olivier