Hi Greg, FWIW a response to my omments from client committee(legal firm) would be required. However, their formal +1 from them on Milton's response would also suffice as well ;-) Thanks On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Response to email just sent.

Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Date: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial Discussion Draft on Transition Models To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>

Seun

A quick observation; the legal separation option does not seem to include advantages/disadvantages like the functional separation.

MM: Actually it does. The discussion draft makes it clear that the legal separation is used as the benchmark, and then compared to functional separation. Thus, the “advantages” of functional separation are the “disadvantages” of legal separation, and the “disadvantages” of functional separation are the “advantages” of legal separation.

After reviewing these pros and cons, I think the only substantive advantage of functional separation is this one:

“Avoids the need to create another layer of governance and accountability at the IANA level and associated complexity; the focus can be on ICANN governance and accountability.”

But this alleged advantage is a mirage. It would be nice to avoid governance problems. But of course, the easiest way to avoid complexity and governance would be to have no accountability at all.

This ‘disadvantage’ of legal separation is really its chief advantage. The reforms of ICANN governance and accountability that come from the CCWG will be reforms oriented to its policy making process, not IANA operations. ICANN is dominated by the policy making process for domain names and the administration of its contracts with registries and registrars – it accounts for 95% of its budget. IANA is a tiny part of ICANN’s overall enterprise. Internal reforms of ICANN governance and accountability are going to be focused on making sure that the policies passed by the board reflect the preferences of its stakeholder groups. Unless there are governance and accountability reforms _*specifically targeting IANA operations*_ the general ICANN CCWG process will do nothing for IANA. And if those specific governance and accountability reforms for IANA are put into place in an internal solution – voila – you have the same additional “complexity” and additional layers of governance that you have in the legal separation. So there is really no gain in simplicity from an internal option.

Let’s bite the bullet and do it right. Legal separation is a requirement.

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | 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/>*

_______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !