Bertrand:

I think there are effective ways to limit the growth of entities that are created from the beginning as limited purpose entities -- e.g., in the articles of incorporation and by-laws, through use of covenants, etc.

Drafting and negotiating (even to a limited extent) 1000+ contracts (in essence, either amending or paralleling all of the gTLD registry agreements, plus contracting with each of the ccTLD registries, many of whom are not in contract with ICANN and don't wish to be)) sounds like a huge challenge to me.  And that leaves the issues of how these groups coordinate and fulfill the functions of NTIA, and where the multistakeholder aspect of this is.

As for jurisdiction, the less independent and important ContractCo is (and the more it is a conduit for the PRT and by extension the MS community), the less important its place of incorporation is, except as a proxy for other issues that really have little to do with jurisdiction per se.

To answer your question directly -- while I don't think anything is formally "off the table," that has not been an idea really put "on the table" in this group -- and the only thing more difficult than building an airplane in mid-air is changing it to a helicopter midstream. 

For what its worth, I note that this idea is similar to part of the Paul Twomey paper that was released this week....

Greg

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@gmail.com> wrote:
Additional comment: any formal entity (Contract Co.) brings the recurrent question of where it is incorporated. 

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


On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@gmail.com> wrote:
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
("There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
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




_______________________________________________
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

ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com 

www.lawabel.com