alissa at cooperw.in
Tue Jun 30 17:21:08 UTC 2015
I think we need to stick to our decision from the end of the meeting, which was to put aside the idea of asking the communities anything until we have a chance to review or re-review what they’ve already sent us. For example, I just did a quick read of Section VI.A of the names proposal, which contains an analysis of alternatives considered (see in particular page 48, of which I’ve copied an extract below). In our assessment of this proposal, we may well conclude that the detail provided there is sufficient. Or we may not, but in any event it is incumbent upon us to assess what we’ve already received before deciding if we have a question to ask. We need a bit of time to re-review the other two proposals as well.
The move from seven potential models to two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model was iterative over a series of sessions. In one session, after explanation of legal counsel’s findings, two models: the internal trust and the external trust, were deemed unsuitable to meet the CWG-Stewardship’s requirements because the structures were not necessarily recognized legally outside of the U.S. Upon conclusion of these sessions, the CWG-Stewardship also agreed to defer further consideration of the “Contract Co.” model (in part, because it did not receive sufficient support after the first public comment period), until the viability of the remaining models could be further considered. In addition, the CWG- Stewardship agreed to defer further consideration of the fully internal model or the standalone IANA hybrid model. The CWG-Stewardship agreed that the remaining
models: two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model (the legal separation model and the functional separate model) required further research on the part of legal counsel before the CWG-Stewardship could make a determination.
Following the meetings in Istanbul, the CWG-Stewardship, in consultation with its
independent legal counsel, held various meetings and reviewed various memos from its
legal counsel to determine which of the two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid
model – the legal separation model and the functional separation model – would be
recommended. The CWG-Stewardship determined that the legal separation model was
preferred because it would establish PTI as a separate legal entity at the outset, allowing for
possible separation from ICANN in the future, if necessary. In addition, the legal separation
model allowed for a contract between ICANN and PTI. With that decision reached, the
CWG-Stewardship turned its focus to developing an accountability framework to support this
model, while legal counsel assisted in addressing governance issues related to the model.
The consideration for the CWG-Stewardship, with consultation from its independent legal
counsel, became whether to support a functionally separate model or a legally separate
model. The group eventually chose the legally separate model because it would establish
the separate PTI entity at the outset, allowing for possible separation from ICANN in the
future, if necessary. With that compromise in place, the CWG-Stewardship turned its focus
to developing an accountability framework to support this model, while legal counsel
assisted in addressing governance issues
More information about the Internal-cg