I second what Milton is saying. I think Paul is proposing essentially an inversion of the Sidley Austin model (and by extension the "Integrated Hybrid Model" or the "Internal Model with Structural Separation"). As I read Paul's suggestion, instead of having the affiliate be the "Post-Transition IANA" (i.e., the IANA Functions operations "in a box"), the affiliate would be the "Post-Transition Oversight/Accountability Mechanism" ("PTOAM"?). Presumably, this would keep the IANA Functions operations inside of ICANN as a (functionally separated) unit. The PTOAM would then be much like Contract Co. (although [possibly] "affiliated" with ICANN rather than completely independent). Greg *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 10:58:30PM +0100, Paul M Kane - CWG wrote:
I would like to specifically ask Sidley to give formal advise on how best to ensure an affiliate company (as part of ICANN Community) can be the custodian for the Stewardship role currently undertaken by NTIA.
I thought in the Sidley documents, ICANN was taking the Stewardship role currently held by NTIA, and PTI does the IANA part, at least if there's an affiliate company. Did I misunderstand?
You did not misunderstand the Sidley-Austin discussion draft. You are, I think, misunderstanding Paul Kane. Paul seems to be asking that the Affiliate be more like the Contract Co.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship