Contract Co: the jurisdictional questions as had been raised in this thread makes it less attractive as the way to go.
MM: I’m sorry, but this doesn’t make any sense to me. There is no avoidance of jurisdictional issues. If there is no Contract Co. and
ICANN controls the whole process directly, which is want Olivier and Alan want, then the jurisdiction is the United States. Decisions _must_ be made about jurisdiction, and the creation of a Contract Co. actually gives us more flexibility about this
than the status quo. Let me also remind you that with the U.S. Congress looking over NTIA and a lame-duck Presidency, altering the jurisdiction of ICANN itself is simply not feasible at this juncture.
Mary: Exactly my point, we should not create another corporation in the US rather deal with the existing ones and
have a truly multi-stakeholder body to replace the NTIA stewardship position. I do not agree with you that the Internet Community needs a parallel ICANN for the IANA functions. I believe that changes should be minimal since it is working well.
Question: Is this a multi-stakeholder entity?
MM: The answer is simple. Yes. Contract Co. gets its instructions directly from PRT, which is multistakeholder.
Mary: It does not still make it a truly Multi-stakeholder entity. PRT I can understand, perhaps, it might be helpful for you to explain further how Contract Co will function without a Board, Directors or Staff. who will answer to the licensing/registering authority? Are there no minimal requirements for incorporating a Co? What of the Bylaws for Registration? .
General acceptability by the internet community may be difficult to sell considering the heightened awareness in most governments ( ie ccTLDs) regarding
the IANA relationship and the position of NTIA in representing governments in the functions.
MM: I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the proposal before us. Contract Co is just a shell that does what the PRT tells it
to do. If you are looking at it as some kind of
Mary: Would promoters of the corporation come from the mutli-stakholders (acting on equal footing) of the internet community?
I believe a less legal formal entity operating a bottom up process would not only meet the NTIA requirements but also give the internet community the opportunity
to be part of the MoU agreement with IANA functions Operator.
MM: I don’t understand this. PRT is representative of the Internet community. What is the difference between an MoU and a contract, except
that an MoU is legally weaker and less separable?
Mary: PRT is not Contract Co. I believe PRT can serve as a replacement of NTIA with a legally weaker Agreement in order to promote the true Multi-stakeholder entity.
Who is the ultimate supervisor (Regulator) of this entity? - US government?
MM: Again I do not understand where you are coming from and think that you may be fundamentally misunderstanding the proposal. The whole
point of this proposal is to get the unilateral authority of the US government out of the system completely.
Mary: I am sorry if I do not understand the proposal, but it seems to me that we are creating another ICANN in the name of Contract Co. There are some unanswered questions regarding the Contract Co that need further clarifications. An MoU between the Multistakeholder entity and the IANA operator would serve our purpose of getting the unilateral authority of the US government out and the authority of the internet community in.
My views.
Mary Uduma