Hi Bertrand,
If contracts there are between IANA customers and the IANA functions operator, these should not need the Contract Co’s involvement (and I would find it hard
to see why Contract Co would be involved at all at that level for what is a relationship between supplier (the operator) and the customer (the registry).
However, I’d note that (as Greg points out in a later post) there are a number of organisations (ccTLDs) that do not want or cannot sign such a contract and
the current arrangements do not try to force this. There is a bit of a history here!
Martin
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle
Sent: 27 November 2014 13:05
To: Avri Doria
Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.
Is the idea of a contract Co. a done deal? Establishing any organization with whatever limited staff is usually a recipe for its growth in time.
Is the option of having separate complementary contracts by the different users of the IANA functions off the table?
B.
|
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes", Antoine de
Saint Exupéry |
|
BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE |
|
Internet & Jurisdiction Project | Director |
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I think this has exactly a 180 degree wrong approach
• Contract Co. – This is a not for profit company whose only function is to be signatory to the contract with the IANA Functions Operator. As such this entity would have no staff.
I think that this should have nothing but staff, a minimal staff of one or two I.e it should have a neutral Administrator that does what the PRT tells her to do in terms of the contract adminstration, and perhaps a backup/aise. It could also be the Root Zone
Management Process Administrator as that is a clerical staff function.
avri
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship