Sorry to insist, my legal background may be lacking, but:

1) I am sure that the W3C, while not incorporated, signed its "host agreements" with three universities. So, contracting may not be linked so indisputably with formal incorporation.

2) the ccNSO and the gNSO are structures within ICANN for the purpose of policy-making and in that regard under the ICANN Board for validation. However, they do perform other useful functions for the respective communities without having to refer to the ICANN Board. as a matter of fact, a lot in the ccNSO relates to internal issues. 

Nothing would prevent in my view conferring them with a specific role regarding the IANA function, that would not be subject to the Board validation, should we collectively decide to follow that route. 

This would seem to me much more bottom up and distributed that creating a single new, different structure for the sole purpose of contracting, with the concerns that some people have. Aren't we too unimaginatively trying to mimic the currant arrangement?

After all, we have not discussed in detail (or I missed it) the composition of the PRT, but my guess is that it would leverage such existing structures. So why not explore doing it also for the agreement part?

B. 

  

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes", Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")

BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE

Internet & Jurisdiction Project | Director

email bdelachapelle@internetjurisdiction.net

email bdelachapelle@gmail.com

twitter @IJurisdiction | @bdelachapelle

mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

www.internetjurisdiction.net

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

hi,

GNSO and ccNSO have no ability to sign a contract with anyone, they are just parts of ICANN and ICANn cannot sign a contract with itself.

The contracting authority for IANA must be outside ICANN and it must be an entity that is capable of signing a contract.

avri

On 01-Dec-14 17:13, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:

Avri,

I want to clarify. You wrote:

The problem is that if the ICANN internal multistakeholder community says A, the ICANN Board can say Not A, and there is NOTHING we can do about it.  

The avenue I am exploring is to empower the ccNSO and the gNSO as such with the capacity to sign an MoU with the chosen IANA contractor (and to choose it). In that approach, the ICANN Board would NOT be in the loop.  Does that clarify and answer your concern? B.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

On 01-Dec-14 16:40, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

- ICANN has built a highly diverse multi-stakeholder environment and we should leverage on that by providing mechanisms that will energise it.

Indeed the PRT does that.

The problem is that if the ICANN internal multistakeholder community says A, the ICANN Board can say Not A, and there is NOTHING we can do about it.  Thus there needs to be an external entity that the ICANN stakeholder environment we have created can directly affect without threat of capture by ICANN Corporate.

That is the primary Capture Entity we need to concern ourselves with: ICANN Corporate.

avri

_______________________________________________
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