I guess it is all in the reading. When you combine the section I identified (and others) and the "mix and match" process it was there from my sperspective. Alan At 01/12/2014 01:35 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:

Alan:

Strawman 1 was not an "internal to ICANN" proposal. The part that you quote refers to the IANA Functions Operator remaining ICANN. That does not make it an internal to ICANN approach. The current proposal also leaves ICANN as the IANA Functions Operator. By that measure, the current proposal is just as much "internal to ICANN."

An "internal to ICANN" approach would be one where there was no external entity (legal or otherwise involved) and oversight, accountability and all of the other roles currently performed by NTIA are performed by bodies internal to ICANN.

You go on to say that there was "clearly no other entity holding the contract." This is incorrect. I draw your attention to the section "Documentation to Replace NTIA Contract," which reads:

Service Level Agreement. The OPRC and ICANN will enter into a Service Level Agreement for the performance of the technical and administrative IANA functions. The SLA would run for an initial term of three years and would be renewed upon the agreement of the OPRC and the IANA Functions Operator.

A "Service Level Agreement" is a form of contract -- so there is clearly a contract. And it states that the "OPRC and ICANN will enter into" this contact. So there is clearly an "other entity" holding the contract.

You also state that the OPRC is an "internal committee." This is also incorrect. The section on legal status of OPRC states "Legal Status. The OPRC will be a committee rather than a separate incorporated entity. [The committee may be considered an “unincorporated association,” and will be domiciled in [California or the U.S. or Switzerland or some other place] to the extent that the committee has a legal identity.]." Nowhere does this state or even imply that the OPRC is an ICANN Committee. Indeed the fact that there is a discussion of domicile and that OPRC will enter into an agreement with ICANN can only lead to the conclusion that the OPRC is external ICANN.

I stand by my earlier statement -- I don't think an "internal to ICANN" proposal was ever put on the table within the group prior to Frankfurt in any kind of tangible, concrete fashion.

Greg

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: I have to disagree.

...

Strawman Proposal 1

4 Status of IANA Functions Operator

a Division of ICANN. The IANA Functions Operator will remain a division of ICANN.

b Enhanced Separability. ICANN will maintain the current separation between ICANN and IANA, and will make the IANA Functions Operator more easily separable from ICANN, if separation becomes necessary at some future time.

There was a "Review Committee" but clearly no other entity holding the contract. Strawman 1 did, nonsensically, posit that the internal committee could initiate an RFP. for a "new" operator, but this too confirmed the the "old" operator was ICANN.

The references to an oversight "mechanism" also alluded to something other than an external contract-holding entity.

Alan

At 30/11/2014 01:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

...

Frankly, I don't think an "internal to ICANN" proposal was ever put on the table within the group prior to Frankfurt in any kind of tangible, concrete fashion.

--

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

<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>gsshatan@lawabel.com

ICANN-related: <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com

www.lawabel.com