The structure of this process, as set forth by the ICG, is that each of the three communities come up with proposals limited in scope to names, number or protocol parameters (respectively), and the ICG's major job is to coordinate and harmonize them.  So, the IETF is in fact "arguing only for their own bailiwick" because that is the limit of their mandate.  Just as names is the limit of ours.

The ICG is supposed to come up with an integrated solution.   A sole solution may not be possible or advisable -- we found in the CWG that a "one-size-fits-all" approach, even limited to the names issues, would not fly).  So the fact that the IETF has come up with the idea that no major changes are needed reflects their set-up and circumstances (existence of IETF, existence of RFC's and the ability to generate more, which are generally observed by ICANN and the rest of the Internet Community, no great concern about accountability, etc.); these are not ours, so our solution is highly likely to be different.

Greg



On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Alissa:  But I would strongly prefer a sole solution to the transition. Because of the practical constraints on multistakeholder oversight of IANA and ICANN. (Several IANAs - NO).

If IETF is arguing only for their own bailiwick, then I might part company … 

CW

ç

On 29 Nov 2014, at 21:57, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

As mentioned earlier in the thread, the IETF draft is focused on protocol parameters. It does not make any suggestions for transition plans for names or numbers.

Alissa

On Nov 29, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Good evening:

I think at this stage in proceedings there is NO 'done deal'.
CWG is preparing an hopefully - but not necessarily - unique proposal to the ICG. Nothing more.

In that context, some of us may have come across the recent IETF draft response to ICG (pp 19 + Annexes) at:


The IETF Response is, inter alia,  "No major changes are required" (twice).

Since I have no particular brief for the IETF (except that it's them that what's done it - the Internet), I offer this only as evidence that ICG will have work to do and that the current battle-royal in CWG is rather besides the point.

Regards

CW

On 29 Nov 2014, at 19:09, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

Mary,
Appreciate your comments but I cannot make sense of some of your arguments. Specifically,
Contract Co:  the jurisdictional questions as had been raised in this thread makes it less attractive as the way to go. 
 
MM: I’m sorry, but this doesn’t make any sense to me. There is no avoidance of jurisdictional issues. If there is no Contract Co. and ICANN controls the whole process directly, which is want Olivier and Alan want, then the jurisdiction is the United States. Decisions _must_ be made about jurisdiction, and the creation of a Contract Co. actually gives us more flexibility about this than the status quo. Let me also remind you that with the U.S. Congress looking over NTIA and a lame-duck Presidency, altering the jurisdiction of ICANN itself is simply not feasible at this juncture.
 
Question: Is this a multi-stakeholder entity? 
 
MM: The answer is simple. Yes. Contract Co. gets its instructions directly from PRT, which is multistakeholder.
 
General acceptability by the internet community may be difficult to sell considering the heightened awareness in most governments ( ie ccTLDs) regarding the IANA relationship and the position of NTIA in representing governments in the functions.
 
MM: I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the proposal before us. Contract Co is just a shell that does what the PRT tells it to do. If you are looking at it as some kind of
 
I believe a less legal formal entity operating a bottom up process would  not only meet the NTIA requirements but also give the internet community the opportunity to be part of the MoU agreement with IANA functions Operator.
 
MM: I don’t understand this. PRT is representative of the Internet community. What is the difference between an MoU and a contract, except that an MoU is legally weaker and less separable?
 
Who is the ultimate supervisor (Regulator) of this entity? - US government?
 
MM: Again I do not understand where you are coming from and think that you may be fundamentally misunderstanding the proposal. The whole point of this proposal is to get the unilateral authority of the US government out of the system completely.
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship



_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@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@lawabel.com

ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com 

www.lawabel.com