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

ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com

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