Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel
All: Attached is a draft scope document intended to refine our request for independent legal counsel. Your comments would be most appreciated at the soonest time. Greg
It looks pretty good to me Greg. We could certainly ask more questions but I think this is a good start and you left the door open for more questions. If you haven’t already done it, I think you should have Sam evaluate whether she thinks it provides enough information for us to move forward. Any potential legal experts will of course of more questions. The edits I proposed are all very minor. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:24 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel All: Attached is a draft scope document intended to refine our request for independent legal counsel. Your comments would be most appreciated at the soonest time. Greg
Greg, Agree with Chuck but wanted to add one thought. Seems to me that you may have to add the MRT to the discussions on ConCo so that there can be some legal analysis as to what role (if any) the MRT should/would have to play w/r/t the management/contracting function of ConCo. Just refering to ConCo alone may not provide the fullest picture. Matthew On 1/14/2015 8:46 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
It looks pretty good to me Greg. We could certainly ask more questions but I think this is a good start and you left the door open for more questions. If you haven’t already done it, I think you should have Sam evaluate whether she thinks it provides enough information for us to move forward. Any potential legal experts will of course of more questions.
The edits I proposed are all very minor.
Chuck
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:24 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel
All:
Attached is a draft scope document intended to refine our request for independent legal counsel. Your comments would be most appreciated at the soonest time.
Greg
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987
Thanks Greg May I also suggest a 3rd option..... I understand Contract Co (but fear it may become far too complicated for a simple task); I understand internal to ICANN (but feat too many functions at a centralised ICANN subject to capture, manipulation with limited ways to guaranteeing quality of service). May I propose an Internet Community Association (ICA). The ICA could be a light weight, with a specific very limited purpose to award the IANA Root Zone Management MoU to that entity that can best serve technical requirements of the Registry operators (ccTLDs and gTLDs). It is assumed that the current IANA operator will be the first party to be awarded the IANA MoU and should the current operator (ab)use its position to the detriment of one or more Registry Operators (as determined by X (CSC, MRT, external party) then such determination will trigger a process to find a new IANA Root Zone Management. Best Paul Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
It looks pretty good to me Greg. We could certainly ask more questions but I think this is a good start and you left the door open for more questions. If you havenât already done it, I think you should have Sam evaluate whether she thinks it provides enough information for us to move forward. Any potential legal experts will of course of more questions.
The edits I proposed are all very minor.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:24 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel
All:
Attached is a draft scope document intended to refine our request for independent legal counsel. Your comments would be most appreciated at the soonest time.
Greg
Paul, In terms of requesting legal advice, how would ICA differ from Contract Co.? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 3:40 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel Thanks Greg May I also suggest a 3rd option..... I understand Contract Co (but fear it may become far too complicated for a simple task); I understand internal to ICANN (but feat too many functions at a centralised ICANN subject to capture, manipulation with limited ways to guaranteeing quality of service). May I propose an Internet Community Association (ICA). The ICA could be a light weight, with a specific very limited purpose to award the IANA Root Zone Management MoU to that entity that can best serve technical requirements of the Registry operators (ccTLDs and gTLDs). It is assumed that the current IANA operator will be the first party to be awarded the IANA MoU and should the current operator (ab)use its position to the detriment of one or more Registry Operators (as determined by X (CSC, MRT, external party) then such determination will trigger a process to find a new IANA Root Zone Management. Best Paul Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
It looks pretty good to me Greg. We could certainly ask more questions but I think this is a good start and you left the door open for more questions. If you haven’t already done it, I think you should have Sam evaluate whether she thinks it provides enough information for us to move forward. Any potential legal experts will of course of more questions.
The edits I proposed are all very minor.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:24 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel
All:
Attached is a draft scope document intended to refine our request for independent legal counsel. Your comments would be most appreciated at the soonest time.
Greg
Dear Greg, Is this to be referred to the same legal expert as the Expert Legal Adviser that the Accountability group is waiting for? And is it still open to nominate an expert? Thank you Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul,
In terms of requesting legal advice, how would ICA differ from Contract Co.?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 3:40 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel
Thanks Greg
May I also suggest a 3rd option.....
I understand Contract Co (but fear it may become far too complicated for a simple task); I understand internal to ICANN (but feat too many functions at a centralised ICANN subject to capture, manipulation with limited ways to guaranteeing quality of service).
May I propose an Internet Community Association (ICA).
The ICA could be a light weight, with a specific very limited purpose to award the IANA Root Zone Management MoU to that entity that can best serve technical requirements of the Registry operators (ccTLDs and gTLDs).
It is assumed that the current IANA operator will be the first party to be awarded the IANA MoU and should the current operator (ab)use its position to the detriment of one or more Registry Operators (as determined by X (CSC, MRT, external party) then such determination will trigger a process to find a new IANA Root Zone Management.
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
It looks pretty good to me Greg. We could certainly ask more questions but I think this is a good start and you left the door open for more questions. If you haven’t already done it, I think you should have Sam evaluate whether she thinks it provides enough information for us to move forward. Any potential legal experts will of course of more questions.
The edits I proposed are all very minor.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:24 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel
All:
Attached is a draft scope document intended to refine our request for independent legal counsel. Your comments would be most appreciated at the soonest time.
Greg
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
The ICA concept and MoU with ICANN provides less opportunity for empire building (as its scope can be pre-defined) and also less of a legal target than an incorporated Contract Co. It is more akin to the structure that the RIRs have with the NRO and ICANN, which has proven to be fit for purpose. The goal being to explore all option and give feedback to our respective communities as to what has been explored and the best way(s) forward. Best Paul Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Paul,
In terms of requesting legal advice, how would ICA differ from Contract Co.?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 3:40 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel
Thanks Greg
May I also suggest a 3rd option.....
I understand Contract Co (but fear it may become far too complicated for a simple task); I understand internal to ICANN (but feat too many functions at a centralised ICANN subject to capture, manipulation with limited ways to guaranteeing quality of service).
May I propose an Internet Community Association (ICA).
The ICA could be a light weight, with a specific very limited purpose to award the IANA Root Zone Management MoU to that entity that can best serve technical requirements of the Registry operators (ccTLDs and gTLDs).
It is assumed that the current IANA operator will be the first party to be awarded the IANA MoU and should the current operator (ab)use its position to the detriment of one or more Registry Operators (as determined by X (CSC, MRT, external party) then such determination will trigger a process to find a new IANA Root Zone Management.
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
It looks pretty good to me Greg. We could certainly ask more questions but I think this is a good start and you left the door open for more questions. If you havenââ¬â¢t already done it, I think you should have Sam evaluate whether she thinks it provides enough information for us to move forward. Any potential legal experts will of course of more questions.
The edits I proposed are all very minor.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:24 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel
All:
Attached is a draft scope document intended to refine our request for independent legal counsel. Your comments would be most appreciated at the soonest time.
Greg
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
The ICA concept and MoU with ICANN provides less opportunity for empire building (as its scope can be pre-defined) and also less of a legal target than an incorporated Contract Co.
Hi Paul, Just to be clear, how will the ICA formation look like and how does the MoU between the 2 entity become binding?
It is more akin to the structure that the RIRs have with the NRO and ICANN, which has proven to be fit for purpose.
The NRO and ICANN agreement(s) were signed by each RIRs because those are the incoporated organisation, going that same route may not be readily applicable(or could be complicated) to names. Cheers! Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Paul,
In terms of requesting legal advice, how would ICA differ from Contract Co.?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 3:40 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel
Thanks Greg
May I also suggest a 3rd option.....
I understand Contract Co (but fear it may become far too complicated for a simple task); I understand internal to ICANN (but feat too many functions at a centralised ICANN subject to capture, manipulation with limited ways to guaranteeing quality of service).
May I propose an Internet Community Association (ICA).
The ICA could be a light weight, with a specific very limited purpose to award the IANA Root Zone Management MoU to that entity that can best serve technical requirements of the Registry operators (ccTLDs and gTLDs).
It is assumed that the current IANA operator will be the first party to be awarded the IANA MoU and should the current operator (ab)use its position to the detriment of one or more Registry Operators (as determined by X (CSC, MRT, external party) then such determination will trigger a process to find a new IANA Root Zone Management.
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
It looks pretty good to me Greg. We could certainly ask more questions but I think this is a good start and you left the door open
for more questions. If you haven’t already done it, I think you should have Sam evaluate whether she thinks it provides enough information for us to move forward. Any potential legal experts will of course of more questions.
The edits I proposed are all very minor.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:24 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel
All:
Attached is a draft scope document intended to refine our request for independent legal counsel. Your comments would be most appreciated at the soonest time.
Greg
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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 !
Paul, Are you saying then that ICA would not be incorporated? I am not advocating for Contract Co. but it seems to me that it would be very thin so it is not clear that empire building could happen. Where the empire building would seem to more likely is with regard to who controls Contract Co. or ICA. Who would control ICA? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 9:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel The ICA concept and MoU with ICANN provides less opportunity for empire building (as its scope can be pre-defined) and also less of a legal target than an incorporated Contract Co. It is more akin to the structure that the RIRs have with the NRO and ICANN, which has proven to be fit for purpose. The goal being to explore all option and give feedback to our respective communities as to what has been explored and the best way(s) forward. Best Paul Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Paul,
In terms of requesting legal advice, how would ICA differ from Contract Co.?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 3:40 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel
Thanks Greg
May I also suggest a 3rd option.....
I understand Contract Co (but fear it may become far too complicated for a simple task); I understand internal to ICANN (but feat too many functions at a centralised ICANN subject to capture, manipulation with limited ways to guaranteeing quality of service).
May I propose an Internet Community Association (ICA).
The ICA could be a light weight, with a specific very limited purpose to award the IANA Root Zone Management MoU to that entity that can best serve technical requirements of the Registry operators (ccTLDs and gTLDs).
It is assumed that the current IANA operator will be the first party to be awarded the IANA MoU and should the current operator (ab)use its position to the detriment of one or more Registry Operators (as determined by X (CSC, MRT, external party) then such determination will trigger a process to find a new IANA Root Zone Management.
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
It looks pretty good to me Greg. We could certainly ask more questions but I think this is a good start and you left the door open for more questions. If you havenââ,¬â"¢t already done it, I think you should have Sam evaluate whether she thinks it provides enough information for us to move forward. Any potential legal experts will of course of more questions.
The edits I proposed are all very minor.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:24 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel
All:
Attached is a draft scope document intended to refine our request for independent legal counsel. Your comments would be most appreciated at the soonest time.
Greg
Hello all, this has a flavour of the INSO (IANA Names Supporting Organisation) and INRO (IANA Names Resource Organisation) proposal which I shared a while ago. That proposal is one of the proposals considered by the ALAC. Kindest regards, Olivier On 15/01/2015 14:57, Paul M Kane - CWG wrote:
The ICA concept and MoU with ICANN provides less opportunity for empire building (as its scope can be pre-defined) and also less of a legal target than an incorporated Contract Co.
It is more akin to the structure that the RIRs have with the NRO and ICANN, which has proven to be fit for purpose.
The goal being to explore all option and give feedback to our respective communities as to what has been explored and the best way(s) forward.
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Paul,
In terms of requesting legal advice, how would ICA differ from Contract Co.?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 3:40 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel
Thanks Greg
May I also suggest a 3rd option.....
I understand Contract Co (but fear it may become far too complicated for a simple task); I understand internal to ICANN (but feat too many functions at a centralised ICANN subject to capture, manipulation with limited ways to guaranteeing quality of service).
May I propose an Internet Community Association (ICA).
The ICA could be a light weight, with a specific very limited purpose to award the IANA Root Zone Management MoU to that entity that can best serve technical requirements of the Registry operators (ccTLDs and gTLDs).
It is assumed that the current IANA operator will be the first party to be awarded the IANA MoU and should the current operator (ab)use its position to the detriment of one or more Registry Operators (as determined by X (CSC, MRT, external party) then such determination will trigger a process to find a new IANA Root Zone Management.
Best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
It looks pretty good to me Greg. We could certainly ask more questions but I think this is a good start and you left the door open for more questions. If you haven’t already done it, I think you should have Sam evaluate whether she thinks it provides enough information for us to move forward. Any potential legal experts will of course of more questions. The edits I proposed are all very minor.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:24 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel
All:
Attached is a draft scope document intended to refine our request for independent legal counsel. Your comments would be most appreciated at the soonest time.
Greg
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
participants (7)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Matthew Shears -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Paul M Kane - CWG -
Seun Ojedeji -
Sivasubramanian M