No, not just Olivier... On November 29, 2014 12:12:35 AM EST, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Just for the record... It wasn't only Olivier that was of the opinion that we did not look at other options. However I have observed that the "who" (by individual or stakeholder) is saying what is given more preference in considering comments/contributions in this process.
I rest my case for now.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 29 Nov 2014 08:23, "Guru Acharya" <gurcharya@gmail.com> wrote:
I quite like the current form of the proposal and feel we are headed in the right direction.
That said, I can understand why Olivier is upset.
We started off with three strawman proposals, which were modular and mix and match, leading to an endless number of permutations to be discussed in Frankfurt.
The discussion in Frankfurt started on a good constructive note wherein there appeared to be immediate consensus that IANA should stay in ICANN; eliminating the modular aspects of Strawman 2 & 3 that represented IANA as a subsidiary and IANA as an independent corporation.
Then we came to the discussion of the Oversight Body and there appeared to be somewhat of a prolonged disagreement/holdout.
After a break, the coordinators completely abandoned the Strawman approach and adopted a new approach, which everybody was slightly unprepared for. This approach was to understand and list down the functions that NTIA performs. This eventually turned into an exercise of faithfully replicating the functions that NTIA performs. Replicating the NTIA functions eventually led to the creation of a PRT, CSC and finally the Contract Co for holding the IANA contract (that NTIA currently holds).
People slowly started realising that an exercise to faithfully replicate NTIA automatically eliminates options that diverge from the NTIA model. For example, the non-contractual model that Olivier seems to be arguing in favour of, or the trust-like model that Avri argued for, or the model that Bertrand now suggests, would naturally be eliminated from the discussion.
By this time it was the last RFP3 session of the last day of the conference. Participants did object to the creation of Contract Co in the followup sessions on the way ahead. These objections were tackled by saying nothing in final and everything is open to change.
I can therefore understand why Olivier is up in arms when he now hears that the Contract Co is final.
Funny are the ways of a multi-stakeholder process. In this case, mostly driven by lack of time.
Please forgive me if my reading of Frankfurt is shallow. I am not pointing fingers. Given the lack of time that we have had, I think Frankfurt was handled exceptionally well. And I reiterate that I feel that the current proposal is headed in the right direction. I'm just glad i'm not on the other side of the argument.
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Greg,
again, did we ever consider an alternative to creating a corporation? Kind regards,
Olivier
On 29/11/2014 00:32, Greg Shatan wrote:
Olivier,
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the "configuration" of Contract Co. We certainly have discussed the "form" the entity would take, i.e., a nonprofit corporation. Place of incorporation has not been significantly discussed in recent days, though we had a number of email exchanges and some discussion of jurisdiction earlier in a variety of contexts.
Greg
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 28/11/2014 16:36, Milton L Mueller wrote:
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand de La Chapelle
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.
MM: The idea that there should be a contracting entity separate from ICANN is, I believe, a done deal. It reflects some of the principles we agreed on (such as separability) and the general agreement that, as the draft proposal says,
“The current arrangements provided by the NTIA for the oversight and accountability of the IANA Functions are generally satisfactory and the objective of the CWG is to replicate these as faithfully as possible”
This is not at all how I understood it. The discussion on whether the "contracting entity" should be a contract co. or something else has never been touched - certainly no alternatives have been seriously considered.
MM: On the other hand, whether the specific configuration of the Contract Co. is optimal for achieving those purposes could still be open. I would say is still open to _modification_; any modification that accomplishes the agreed objectives but avoids any problems that might arise would be welcomed by the CWG I imagine.
The configuration of the Contract Co. has not been discussed either. We know what functions should be undertaken and what broad characteristics would be needed. No discussion of jurisdiction nor configuration of the entity has been done except on RFP4 call today where we started to touch on it.
Kind regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*666 Third Avenue **ï** 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/>*
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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