Dear Greg, On 29/11/2014 07:05, Greg Shatan wrote:
It is certainly my recollection that there were some discussions that involved alternatives to creating a corporation (whether another type of legal entity, such as a trust, or a group that had no legal status, such as a committee). It was even suggested that an existing organization, such as the IETF (not a legal entity, actually) or ISOC or the IETF Trust (which exists to hold and license IPR), could be used to contract with the IANA Functions Provider. I think these tended to fall away and did not find traction as we moved along, especially as the use of a contract came to the fore, which required an entity capable of contracting.
I do not recall having a real stab at the alternatives. The "Trust" model was never given a chance to be discussed. Neither was the option of keeping the contracting function within ICANN with internal mechanisms that might create a linked entity like the ASO/NRO using MoUs. A lot of ICANN's model is based on these MoUs. Or a model based on SLA, processes and obligations which automatically trigger remedial processes overseen by a neutral organisation has not been discussed either. Instead, as Guru very correctly described, we ended up with reaching a model of entities which were initially entities in the wider sense of the term (hence avoiding the use of the term "bodies" which could be seen as being a legal entity) and working on the functions of 4 entities. (in addition to the IANA Operator itself) The 4 entities are described on the flowchart as: - IANA Customer Standing Committee (CSC) - IANA Periodic Review Team (PRT) - Independent Appeals Panel for Policy Implementation (IAP) - IANA Contracting Entity They are all marked as "entities" so I never felt that any final decision had been made on whether they would be incorporated. I also applaud Guru's overall description of the Frankfurt meeting. He also points out that multistakeholder models appear to be driven by lack of time. Only this is no small decision that will marginally affect the future of the naming functions. What is designed here needs to withstand the test of time and any future challenges. Designing this by jumping into the first solution without considering other solutions is dangerous - especially when it might well have been the result of Groupthink. During the meeting I saw several warnings being uttered not only by the At-Large participants but also by independent participants as well as ccTLD representatives and others, yet these gained no traction for various reasons which I would not attribute to Groupthink - a good explanation of which can be found on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink I would like us to be able to go into this public comment period with a much more open mind and to take our blinders off. 48 hours was too short a time to come up with a final solution and input from our wider communities will no doubt open new perspectives that we will need to give some serious consideration to. Kindest regards, Olivier ps. I have shared scenarios of threats/mitigation with the At-Large working group on IANA issues & will forward them to the list before the deadline today.