Proposed Agenda: 

• Assessment of DTs overall (DT-B; DT-N; DT-F; DT-O)

• Post-transition structural considerations (led by Sidley)

Notes

• Final session of the afternoon
• Sidley Austin presenting
• ICANN is paying the fees for Sidley's services
• Holly Gregory and Sharon Flanagan are present in Istanbul but there is a whole team with multiple areas of expertise to complement the group and respond to the CWG's needs
• CWG provided two sets of questions and Sidley provided written responses.
• Structured the presentation differently (thematic). Not in order of preference
• What is the multistakholder body being considered?

PLEASE REFER TO SLIDES AND TRANSCRIPT FOR FULL LEGAL DETAILS, QUESTIONS, AND RESPONSES. 

All Client Committee Documents are posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/8g8nAw

External Solutions (Contract Co. & External Trust)

Contract Co. 

• In short: Is it a feasible structure? Yes
• The Board of Contract Co. has ultimate authority so it could be the MRT

External Trust 

• Could a trust function as an external solution? Yes

Internal Solutions (Governance solutions & Internal Trust)

Governance Solution 

• lots of mechanisms available to enhance governance

Internal Trust

• Main difference with 'external trust' is who is the trustee. Here, ICANN would be the trustee. 
• Need to define beneficiaries of the trust (trustee's duty is to those beneficiaries) 
• Trust is not recognized in all jurisdictions

Commutity Organization Stucture (Internet Community Association)

• It may not be recognized in all jurisdictions

Hybrid / Integrated Model

Three variants: 

1. Free Standing

2. Unincorporated Association 

3. Affiliate of ICANN, IETF, RIRs --> can be complex legally 

• How is this more prone to capture? because there is a concentration of power

All of the structures discussed have directors. 

Stewardship, Technical, Policy

There may be some models that we can start to weed out (need a list of options and main disadvantages possible)

Important to think of the motivation and the requirements. Not to "die in a ditch" about a model

Options on the table: 

• Contract Co. 
• External Trust 
• Governance Solution ("constitutional bylaw")
• Internal Trust
• Commutity Organization Stucture (Internet Community Association)
• Hybrid / Integrated Model -- Variant 1 (Free Standing)
• Hybrid / Integrated Model -- Variant 2 (Unincorporated Association) 
• Hybrid / Integrated Model -- Variant 3 (Affiliate)

Transcript

Transcript CWG IANA F2F Session 4 26 March.doc

Transcript CWG IANA F2F Session 4 26 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p38o9x35vt3/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-4-26mar15-en.mp3

Documents Presented

• LegalOverview_26March.pptx

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (3/26/2015 08:39) Break until 14:00 UTC.

  Brenda Brewer: (08:40) Welcome to Day 1 Session 4

  Grace Abuhamad: (09:00) All Client Committee documents are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/8g8nAw

  Philip Corwin: (09:24) It does not seem possible to download this PPT from the chat room. Can it please be sent as an attachment to an email sent to all recipients of the CCWG list? Thank you.

  Grace Abuhamad: (09:24) It has been sent Phil

  Grace Abuhamad: (09:24) It's also downloadable from Wiki at link above

  Grace Abuhamad: (09:24) https://community.icann.org/x/8g8nAw

  Jordan Carter: (09:26) it was sent by Grace yesterday

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:30) But for a specific function - it doesn't do policy

  Jordan Carter: (09:31) It is easy to make whatever structure (external contract co, external trust, internal trust) very constrained.

  Matthew Shears: (09:39) if we characterize the IANA functions as a property doesn't that complicate things w/r/t NTIA's claim they are not transitioining assets?

  Chris Disspain: (09:41) yes Matthew I believe it does

  Greg Shatan: (09:41) It's not the IANA Functions that are the "property," it is the contract/right to operate them, which is not being "transitioned." Rather, the NTIA is relinquishing its oversight.

  Chris Disspain: (09:41) but the contract can be an asset I think

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:41) How can we anticipate any contingency that might happen?

  Greg Shatan: (09:41) Yes, Chris, and it is a new contract.

  Chris Disspain: (09:42) corrext

  Greg Shatan: (09:42) Brenden, that's a broad question....

  Chris Disspain: (09:42) howver I have for some time been less and less in favour of a trust

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:42) That't the point, and the flaw I see in trust scenario

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:43) or any situation where we're trying to create separation on the fly

  Chris Disspain: (09:43) so trust is nixed as of now as far as I'm concerned

  Avri Doria: (09:44) fatal: good point

  Greg Shatan: (09:44) fatal....

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (09:45) yup

  Greg Shatan: (09:45) Switching back to black.

  Jordan Carter: (09:48) This presentation is very useful & interesting

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (09:48) Agreed Jordan

  Jordan Carter: (09:53) Can we let the lawyers finish their presentation?

  Jordan Carter: (09:53) please?

  Jordan Carter: (09:53) Before we go into the speaking list?

  Chris Disspain: (09:54) agree Jordan

  Chris Disspain: (09:54) But meanwhile...on whose behalf were you talking Paul?

  Chris Disspain: (09:54) because you continue to use the word 'we'

  Greg Shatan: (09:54) Only a few slides left!f

  Brenden Kuerbis: (09:55) Yes, let's let Sidley finish their advice

  Matthew Shears: (09:58) I wonder if everyone has a full enough understanding of the hybrid integrated model?

  Matthew Shears: (09:58) and its variants

  Erick Iriarte: (09:59) maybe i'm wrong but why is only focus in Californian Law?

  Erick Iriarte: (09:59) was not a comparative law study with other States or Countries?

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:02) I've unsynced the slides

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:03) Thanks grace

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:06) So stronger form of separation is helpful to deal with contingencies

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:09) It would have limited scope and activities, so I would think less legal risk

  Jordan Carter: (10:17) The question that arises in the answer just given is - "who" can assign.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:18) Sorry my 'hand management' is terrible!

  Matthew Shears: (10:20) Chairs - if it would be helpful we could do a quick run through of the rationale  and  architecture of the hybrid model  maybe tomorrow am - if helpoful

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:22) @Matt -- noted for Chairs

  Jordan Carter: (10:24) in case it is useful I am just adding my questions here - 1) how will you offer support to the CWG to develop its objectives in a way that tests out the objectives so we are sure we drive to the right solution that really meets our needs? 2) What's the practical result of the trust model being fatal in terms of control in civil law jurisdictions? 3) the hybrid model seems to be more about how IANA is operated and structurally defining/separating it from ICANN Inc - is that right? (compared with the other models which are about who has thepower to assign the IANA functions), 4) in terms of a member model in a contract co or whatever, how quickly could members be changed by the unincorporated parts of ICANN who would be appointing them - this being a critical accountability matter? and 5) if an internal trust, the fiduciary duty is owed by ICANN the operator to the beneficiaries. what is the impact of this?

  Jordan Carter: (10:24) thanks

  Grace Abuhamad: (10:24) Thanks @Jordan!!

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:26) To Elise comment: I'm not sure everyone is in agreement that IANA will remain in the ICANN entity.  We've heard about affiliates, etc. as well.

  Sharon Flanagan: (10:26) Jordan, thank you --Holly and Sharon

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:27) I do think there is widesprea agreement about IANA department continuing in its operational role.

  Matthew Shears: (10:27) + 1 Brenden

  Greg Shatan: (10:28) Even if it's in a subsidiary of ICANN, it's still within the ICANN enterprise.

  Jordan Carter: (10:28) I think most people think that at the moment of the NTIA contract expiring, IANA-in-ICANN will be operating it

  Jordan Carter: (10:28) the timeframe precludes any other option, doesn't it?

  Matthew Shears: (10:29) well the hybrid put a little spin on that by suggesting that the IANA team as is is responsible to the 3 communities through the commuity board

  Greg Shatan: (10:29) You could probably drop it into a sub with a shared services arrangement with ICANN, but very little operational difference from now.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:30) agree

  Greg Shatan: (10:30) @Matthew, I think that aspect deserves some specific discussion (which I saw you suggest).

  Matthew Shears: (10:30) yes - with the option of moving out as well

  Seun: (10:36) I am glad with how this session is taking shape...lots of myths has been unmasked. Thanks

  Jordan Carter: (10:36) Sure have, Seun.

  Jordan Carter: (10:37) The great merit of independent counsel is that they'll say what they think without any baggage

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:37)  Yeah!

  Jordan Carter: (10:37) They are also better at simplifying and avoiding FUD better than people with an interest in the outcome

  Seun: (10:37) It is my hope that we will determine scope of work here, by focusing on internal solution

  Seun: (10:38) have to go for today...we followed up with the transcript

  Seun: (10:38) thanks to the co-chairs and entire cwg

  Lise Fuhr: (10:39) Bye Seun have a nice evening

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (10:39) bye seun

  Avri Doria: (10:39) what they have done, in a way, is give us a kits of various piece parts we can combine in the solution that suits the consensus best.  We now know we can do it, just have to find the right slection to hit as many of our perceived needs as possible.

  Jonathan Robinson: (10:39) Thanks Seun

  Matthew Shears: (10:39) what's important is finding the solution that works best for this and the broader community and DNS stabiltiy etc.

  Matthew Shears: (10:39) + 1 Avri

  Jordan Carter: (10:41) I don't know why we would need to indemnify members as members

  Jordan Carter: (10:42) indemnity applies to governors - the directors

  Robin Gross: (10:42) In an ICANN bankruptcy, could members be liable?

  Jordan Carter: (10:42) Avri: the trick is going to be ordering our needs, and understanding the tradeoffs in doing so. Thats' what my first question tried to suss out. Maybe badly.

  Jordan Carter: (10:43) Don't incorporated bodies have limited liability in the United States?

  Jordan Carter: (10:43) they certainly do in NZ

  Jordan Carter: (10:51) Chris has just said something very interesting - that the stewardship should sit with ICANN, and this is more important than who operates the IANA functions.

  Matthew Shears: (10:51) I don't think accountability to the community would be lost through the hybrid model

  Matthew Shears: (10:52) if that were to occur

  Jordan Carter: (10:56) This conversation is getting very complicated.

  Brenden Kuerbis: (10:56) I think you vest the ability to seat the affiliate IANA board with the "community". And you give the ICANN (and possibly the RIRs, IETF) contract with affiliate IANA?

  Matthew Shears: (10:58) yes - if IANA team A were not performing you could replace some of the personnel in it or replace it in whole

  Avri Doria: (10:59) well we have already narrowed by talking both Internal and External Trusts off the table.

  Avri Doria: (10:59) i do not think functional is enough without drawing the lines and creating a legal entity.  we allegedly have functiona separation now and that is a fantasy.

  Matthew Shears: (11:00) + 1 Avri

  jorge cancio GAC: (11:03) the question is who can trigger the catapult in an internal option?

  Jordan Carter: (11:03) One could add a layer to my thing - RZO

  Jordan Carter: (11:04) (root zone operation)

  Jordan Carter: (11:05) because actually at the moment, ICANN *does* "contract out" the operation of the root zone

  Jordan Carter: (11:05) it instructs the operator, and we agreed today that the check / authorisation function in between those two layers can go

  Jordan Carter: (11:06) I hope everyone understands from today's chat that THERE ARE NO SIMPLE MODELS. :-|

  Avri Doria: (11:06) there are no real spearations betwee ICANN and IANA now. sam human resources, same budget, same offices, ...

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (11:06) +1 Jordan

  Jordan Carter: (11:06) Avri: my point was that IANA doesn't operate the root

  Avri Doria: (11:06) iana isn't even as separate as GDD

  Jordan Carter: (11:07) It's funny. In Singapore 2014, we (.nz) proposed a strong separation of IANA would be a good thing -- we got rubbished.

  Jordan Carter: (11:07) C'est la vie I spose :)

  Avri Doria: (11:07) we supported you.

  Matthew Shears: (11:07) yep

  Jordan Carter: (11:08) It still helps in lots of ways, whether structural or functional

  Jordan Carter: (11:08) but it doesn't deal with "who the steward is" - and tbh that question seems like the hardest part

  Jordan Carter: (11:09) (functional is ''better'' in not creating yet another entity...)

  Chris Disspain: (11:09) Jordan, if the community has good accountbaility mechanisms in ICANN can we not agree that the community ti the steward THROUGH ICANN?

  Jordan Carter: (11:09) oh yes, that's the ICANN 3.0 that would be the precondition of ICANN as steward :-)

  Chris Disspain: (11:10) Well arent we effectively making ICANN 3 in ccwg?

  Jordan Carter: (11:10) Absolutely

  Chris Disspain: (11:10) Jordan, who is the steward of .nz?

  Jordan Carter: (11:10) InternetNZ is - under New Zealand law

  Chris Disspain: (11:10) and the tech operator?

  Jordan Carter: (11:11) NZRS, a wholly owned subsidiary company.

  Chris Disspain: (11:11) exactly

  Jordan Carter: (11:11) InternetNZ is a membership based organisatin - the members are sovereign, and are part of the local Internet community - so we have the 3.0 thing in place already

  Chris Disspain: (11:11) agree

  Jordan Carter: (11:11) the Internet community organises through our structure and changes the domain if required.

  Chris Disspain: (11:11) yup

  Jordan Carter: (11:12) If that set of relationships was the same in ICANN, there wouldn't be a provlem here to fix... :-)

  Chris Disspain: (11:12) so if we can put in plae the new shiny accountability mechanisms then we're OK aren't we?

  Jordan Carter: (11:12) Chris, in Clinton's immortal words, it all depends on the meaning of "the".

  Brenden Kuerbis: (11:12) but deisgning accoutnability for policy making , and designing accoutnability for just IANA functions two totally different exercises

  Avri Doria: (11:13) i think that is we put our minds to finding the compromise point tomorrow, we could make great progress.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (11:13) been a very productive day though.  but agree with @chris

  Jordan Carter: (11:13) A compromise point or a narrowing to fewer options

  Avri Doria: (11:14) Jordan, as an alternative to finding a draft solution, that would be second best.

  Matthew Shears: (11:14) we don't have 3.0 and won't have it until the shiny new accountbaility are proven Chris

  Konstantinos Komaitis: (11:14) yes it would be good if tomorrow we can start categorizing the various proposals under their legal standing: easy, complex, more complex, very complex, etc.

  Konstantinos Komaitis: (11:16) or something along those lines

  Jordan Carter: (11:18) Also short tables that distinguish between the models