Dear Greg,

thanks for your replies. Unfortunately, I do not have the time at the moment to respond to each and every point you have made. I'll just pick a couple of assertions you have made, though, which I personally disagree with.

On 10/12/2014 20:53, Greg Shatan wrote:

GS:  This is a pretty big "if."  Unlike Contract Co., which would be built from the ground up to be a corporation with very limited purpose and goals and limitations upon its directors and officer, and thus lends itself to this "following orders" model, ICANN is an existing organization with a large board and officer group and many activities. At best, this type of organization does not lend itself to such a model.  At worst, it's not even possible.  But let's assume, solely for the sake of argument, that the ICANN bylaws can be modified in this fashion.  I am assuming that the MRT will be "internal-to-ICANN" like the current SOs and ACs (and in contrast to the ICG).  Is that correct?  If so, how do you involve the global multistakeholder community (beyond ICANN) as required by the NTIA?


I would say that this has already been demonstrated in the making up of the ICG and the current CWG, both of which include non ICANN participants from the global multistakeholder community.

Similarly, I would point out that a totally independent MRT that does not make use of ICANN's existing structures as a convenor would be missing a coordinated Governmental involvement. Indeed, only ICANN has the ability to make use of its members to relate back to the GAC and for the GAC to express points. A totally independent MRT would have individual governments speaking. Of course, individual governments were able to speak outside of ICANN at, say ITU meetings or at NetMundial - but they were not restricted to a handful of seats for the whole world.

[...]


GS:  I am not sure that this is impossible, but there are a number of very fundamental "ifs" and assumptions here that seem to make this speculative and uncertain in the extreme, with no virtue other than to be "internal-to-ICANN."  I also don't see the advantages of this set-up, but perhaps I am missing something.

At this stage, I could use exactly the same wording about the current CWG first draft, replacing "other than to be 'internal-to-ICANN" with "other than to be separable from ICANN".

Clearly we have some work ahead of us to make either proposal, or a mix, workable.

Warmest regards,

Olivier