Meeting #2 CWG RFP 3B (23 January)

Transcript

Transcript RFP 3B 23 Jan.doc

Transcript RFP 3B 23 Jan.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2gbde9sqle/

The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rfp-3b-23jan15-en.mp3

Agenda: 

1. Welcome

2. Need for ‘Discussion Document’ for Singapore

3. Review of ‘Discussion Document’ draft based on auDA proposal

4. Summation and Next Steps

5. Timing of Next Meetings

6. AOB

Notes 23/01: 

1. Welcome

Roll call :  Audio only Eduardo Diaz, Lise Fuhr

2. Need for ‘Discussion Document’ for Singapore

• Singapore meeting offers opportunity to engage with community;
• Goal is to prepare discussion document for Singapore
• At end of meeting decission what goes in as "internal draft proposal
• BT: Assemble document of "what is current state of play" includes
• interaction of CWG
• Status of draft Interim proposal
• Public comment and analysis
• Key questions
• Alternative proposal

First draft shared, starting point

To be completed before Singapore, basis for slide deck etc.

• • AM: send out mock-up to list
  • No comments 

3. Review of ‘Discussion Document’ draft based on auDA proposal

Paul Szyndler: Not able to respond to legal questions. It is presneted as potential solution. Starting to from back to front. Starting wiht non-contentious elements

IAP: considered non-contentious

CSC: only standing committee, other elements only activated when required

Concept Guardian: is concept aligned with"trust" similar kind of function of MRT

ICANN would be declare itself trustee

Beneficiaries: customers of IANA

Implicit assumption: it is an internal to ICANN model, in lign with purpose of this sub-group.

Key element: agree, with IAP and CSC, Guardian similar to MRT

Suggestion to take questions:

• • What is apex/pinnacle point: trust?

• • Chat question: dos it this reflects the first "internal to ICANN" proposal that largely came from ALAC - is this the case?

Focus on Auda proposal first

Alan Greenberg (AG)( ALaC): looking for minimal proposal. At this stage no ALAC position, but is abasis for furhter discussion adn possible evolution

CLO: Evolve to RFP 3B proposal, need to be acceptable if now wedded to Contract Co, For those Request and needs external legal advise, similar as for "Contract Co" proposal. Viable

basis for 3B proposal. Fast track this proposal, to evolve

AM: Auda or LAC proposal is short hand for developing "internal proposal"

Staffan Jonson: Optimistic about proposal, some issues, what  is impact of  declaration of trustee, how does separation work?

AG: Interesting to understand to what extend Auda prop. is more acceptable then ALAC prop. 

AM: Goal is to understand this proposal

Greg Shatan: Notes Trust very specific area of law: NTIA claim to transfer to MS community. If transfered to ICANN how does this relate to need to transfer to MS?

Guardian is only formed when needed: newly formed, or roster?

Donna Austin: IAP and CSC and Guardian are all similar to what has been discussed in RFP 3. If that is the case, leave in RFP 3. and focus in RFP 3B on trust and relation involved? Suggestion supported by fair number of attendants

AG: tends to agree with DA. Focus on understanding trustee and trust relation, but notes substantial differnece based on starting concept

AM: starting from Frankfurt, still does not understand what goes into "trust", what would trust holds?

PS: Agrees not to go into other elements at this stage and focus on core difference.

In developing proposal: what is core of IANA Function and what is transferred. ICANN could be in position that it makes a unulateral statement of trust. This statement delineates what is in "trust". Suggest to focus on model, i.e. separation of IANA Function. Broad concept to ensure role of community vis-a vis Trustee/ICANN. Facilitate discussion on principle. Issues around particpation

AM: Issue to understand what goes into the "trust" How would mechanics work?

PS: NTIA would approve of unilateral declaration by ICANN of holding IAN Function in trust. ICANN would not hold the IANA Function. The functions would be identified in the statement of "trust" and then be bound to the community. statement could include or exclude anything community wants to. 

AM: notes Avri s remark on IETF trust

CLO: Individual experience determine view on model. Hence need for rigorous legal advise. Internal solution through "trust" and "guardian" function, would trigger Review. There is a lot

in model that at arms-length Review etc, could be triggered.

AM: it is given the remit is to develop an internal solution and develop its mechanics

Grag Shatan: CLO refers to guardian as an entity, but not as a legal entity. What if ICANN goes "rogue" and guardian is incorporated, how can Guardian take action? 

Trustee is not powered any decision, however role of trustee is to maintain "trust" , How does this difference be overcome. 

PS: Starting point trustee is not empowered to make changes to trust. ICANN by making statement, it can not empower itself . If ICANN goes "rogue' beneficiaries or guardians can move "trust" somewhere else.

AM: What would happen in mechanical sense if ICANN as "trustee" would not recognize decision?

PS. ICANN holds assets in trust, it would not empower them to take any decision on the asset. various mechanisms to change trustee. Mechanism through 

escalation path described in paper. Key principle ICANN would not be empowered to do anything, and hence would have no control.

DA: What does "trust" hold. Structural changes needed.  to clear delineate IANA Function, includes budget , own legal advise, etc.

AG: what is it in the 'trust" similar question needs to be asked for " interim proposal". It is unclear what will be confereed upon, what will be tranfered? This question 

needs to be asked for all proposals. CWG does not know what is transferred?

AM: in community not enough discussion about " Verisign  root zom=ne maintainer contract". 

Greg Shatan: Model may work if asset is bank account.. IANA function is not clearly defined asset. Does this require internal separation to clearly delineate 'asset"?

CLO: Guardina would be same. Mechanistic aspects happens in same way as NTIA does it currently. All models needs to be tested, and made robust.

Greg Shatan: USG many resources at hand. Guardian does not wield any sticks. 

CLO:  Model should be developed properly, with proper safeguards and safeguards

AG: All mechanisms rely on enforcement in court, contract and Contract Co. as well internal model. Move forward with assumption, that all solutions need to be tested.

AM: unfortunately not legal advise before moving forward. 

Would PS in the position to elaborate on questions asked today. 

PS: Could provide some additional clarifications, but providing fully fleshed out proposal in short term, that was worked in by CWG over last months will not work. 

CLO suggestion: how much of strawman has merit for legal advise? Opinion, sufficient basis for further discussion and seeking legal advise. 

AM: Making sure that it can be socialized

Greg Shatan: How can ICANN be forced to hand over set of activities: fundamental issues, enhancing accountability mechanisms.  Important in both

 proposals: ability to hold board accountability for its decision. 

AM: simpler ways to achieve what needs to be done. 

Question to DA: this option to propose or develop other 

DA: which structural changes would be required? For example build walls around IANA Function.. This discussion has never been had in CWG. Find tangibles

AM: PS asked to elaborate more around this?There are simpler ways, around board resolutions and Bylaw changes?

PS asked to provide elaboration

AM has own ideas, focused around Board resolution and Bylaw changes. Challenge is to write some pages on internal pages.

CLO: Will we have white board in ADOBE, and matrix to compare the similarities and differences,  including the AM model.  

No problem with putting various options to community

AM: Runs over matrix as presented in room.

AG: Is this alternative to original Auda and ALAC proposal? The rationale for Auda, it allows for delineation and easy separation to try appease those who strongly support separation.

PS: Key point Auda's initial proposal, suggested something like a "golden bylaw' informally received feed-back that such a model would be problematic, hence the evolution to "trust model" . What is needed is legal advise.

AM: measure of agreement to see what he can do, AM see what he can do to elaborate. preferably in coordination.

AM: need for two more meetings 

4. Summation and Next Steps

5. Timing of Next Meetings

AM: circulation of discussion paper early February

Next RFP 3B Meetings:

• • Tuesday 27 January 14.00 UTC
  • Thursday 29 January 21.00 UTC

6. AOB

None

Action Items -None

Documents Presented

Slide on Possible Internal to ICANN Option.pdf

An alternative proposal for the IANA transition.pdf

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer:Good Day All!  Welcome to the RDP3B conference on January 23, 2015 at 14:00 UTC.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hello

  Allan MacGillivray:Grace - cna you put the agenda up in the centre screen?

  Grace Abuhamad:@Allan -- done.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:I am not hearing anything in Adobe - can we do a sound check

  Allan MacGillivray:Grace - that is a bit big.  I will send you one with a smaller font size.

  Grace Abuhamad:I've pre-uploaded all your documents for the meeting. Bart and Bernie will support you for the 1st hour. I'll join as soon as I can.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:sound ok

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Hi Jaap

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Hi Bernie

  Allan MacGillivray:Bernie; Bart - I just sent you a version of the agenda with a smaller font size.  Could one of you load it?

  Grace Abuhamad:@Allan I loaded it. Look good?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:usual outstanding effectiveness

  STaffan Jonson:Hello all

  Matthew Shears:Hello

  Steve Crocker:Hello, everyone

  Allan MacGillivray:I see that Paul has joined us; let's wait two more minutes, and then get started.

  STaffan Jonson:Could performance of audio from Allan be increased?

  STaffan Jonson: Quite muffled sound

  Brenda Brewer:Eduardo is on phone line

  STaffan Jonson:loud and clear

  Grace Abuhamad:you all have scroll control

  Matthew Shears:There is an expliciit assumption in the paper that this reflects the first "internal to ICANN" proposal that largely came from ALAC - is this the case?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:to some extent, there are real similarities

  Alan Greenberg:I'm not sure it "reflects" it, but I know that a number of ALAC people support it.

  Alan Greenberg:It does reflect a trust proposal suggested very early by Avri.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:but does it really matter what it looks like? The concept of a Trust was also suggested very early on by Avri in Frankfurt.

  Matthew Shears:Thanks Olivier/Alan

  Seun Ojedeji:I agree there is really no need to trace the source of the proposal....discussing the content is what is important

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):yes agree

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):to KS a lot of the boxes for me

  Sivasubramanian M:Why is it necessary to brand it as an alac proposal or a registry proposal?  If in the end, there is a summary proposals with componets from everywhere, it is good enough, so not necessary to identify it as alac or anything

  Robert Guerra:Good to discuss, but we will need to defer to legal. expert advice will be needed to implement the construct we are talking. California non-profit and trust experts will need to be consulted and see if there is a precedent on a multi-stakeholder trust model.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:From my personal perspective, a good base to work on indeed.

  Robert Guerra:Separability was seen as a important value in the surveys. How can that be built in this model? need to discuss further.

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Cheryl and please lets stop uisng the phrase "so called" internal to ICANN proposal

  Donna Austin, RySG:Agree with Robert, would like to understand how this addresses the separability issue.

  Matthew Shears:+ 1

  Seun Ojedeji:@Robert i think thats an important aspect, i think asking legal on who has the right to challenge the trustee would help determine whether there is indeed seperability (which would be a legal issue)

  Robert Guerra:Accountability and governance of the trust will equally be important to develop further

  Seun Ojedeji:Alternte to ICANN?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):great @Allen.  said there is 2 proposals penned by auda's Paul we should try to differentiate by the label

  Robert Guerra:In essence we are discussing who holds the IANA contract and selects the operator - is it a separate holding company (contract Co.), or have it housed at ICANN via an independant structure such as a trust (auDA) or something else?

  Matthew Shears:I think thats right Robert

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):obviously we needs the test of expert advice Just As the Contract Co; me does

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):happy to come back into the que post questions

  Paul Szyndler:I agree Donna

  Seun Ojedeji:I will really suggest tha throwing questions to paul should be avoided as much, if someone ask question, will be good to have someone within this group contribute what they think is a possible response (we should avoid talking to the author but talk to ourselves)

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:+1 Donna

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Donna as well

  Sivasubramanian M:Found this from a new zealand website:  It is not compulsory to incorporate as a board.  The trustees of a charitable trust can continue to hold the trust property in their joint names for the benefit of the charitable purpose.  Part I of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 helps them by treating the trust property as vesting automatically in 'the trustees for the time being', as inevitably trustees will come and go over time.  This is unlike private trusts, where the vesting of the trust property has to be properly documented each time someone retires or is appointed.

  Greg Shatan:If ICANN is the Trustee, I believe the Trust will be formed under and subject to California law.

  Sivasubramanian M:A trust makes it possible for ICANN to carry out the owner's responsibilities without becoming the owner.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):yes that is how I see it

  Greg Shatan:According to the auDA document, ICANN is the owner, but holds the property "in trust."

  Robert Guerra:not mentioned - but assumed in our conversations.. is that the jurisdiction will remain as-is. So what's feasible and possible will need to detailed using California/US law

  Sivasubramanian M:Greg:  We can find solution to the nuances as we go

  Matthew Shears:How does the Declaration of Trust ensure that ICANN would turn over the contract to a new operator if the community decides that it should do?  What if ICANN were to say that turning it over would not be in the public interest?

  Greg Shatan:@Siva, that's equally true of other proposals.

  Sivasubramanian M:At the proposal development stage, we don't have to steer away from ideas based on the assumption that it may not be legally feasible

  Seun Ojedeji:@Greg ICANN is not really the owner, ICANN is allowed to act as the owner.

  Avri Doria:the tpop level directory and the methods for maintianing it does seem to be an asset.. so whether a trust if held by ICANN or another party, i expect that it can be defined as a trust.  from the informal consultations I have had with trust lawyers, what those of use favoring a trust model (internal or extranlly held) can be done.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):yes as I see it the Guardian  / entity  would be able to trigger things like an RFP  or of course to if needs be sepertate away from ICANN

  Guru Acharya:To make IANA a property under the ambit of a trust, would it need to made a separate entity or can it be a property in its current form as a division of ICANN?

  Greg Shatan:@Seun -- That's not what the proposal says.

  Avri Doria:but we need the real advice on that.  also why does the trust need to be held under calafornis law. even if restricted to the US, thee are 50 models of trust law in the US., one for each state.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):absolutely@avri

  Greg Shatan:I believe (but we need advice on that) that the domicile of the Trust dictates the "domicile" of the trust.

  Robert Guerra:might be helpful to get a 101 (intro ) on trusts as many participating in the iana transition conversation might not be familiar with the construct and if it's a possible mechanism to use ..

  Seun Ojedeji:ICANN is trustee and the way i understood the proposal there is a author/settlor that entrust the function to the trustee to run the function for the benefit of the community/beneficiary. I must confess that i am also not entirely clear about this but i believe it can be further developed

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:+1 robert

  Robert Guerra:it's like trying to talk about the DNS and not know how the internet works.

  Avri Doria:Robert, except tha tthere is one DNS and many laws governing trusts, what they can hold and how it is done.

  Matthew Shears:If ICANN fails its periodic review how will it ransfer its rights and obligations to a new trustee and who or what would that trustee be and would it be held by the operator - as ICANN would be doing?

  Avri Doria:a simlar model might be the Interent trust that hold the property or the protocol commuunity.

  Avri Doria:but i am not sure how deep that nalaogy could go.

  Guru Acharya:The IETF trust document is available here: https://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-Agreement-Executed-12-15-05.pdf

  Steve Crocker:The IETF Trust holds intellectual property associated with the IETF.

  Guru Acharya:It is proposed that the Trust hold IANA Functions. So the IANA Functions need to be in the form of a property. How do we make IANA Functions a property? Is it by making it a separate legal entity, the shares of which are held by the trust?

  Avri Doria:in tis case the assets are the directories, names associated with the IANA fucntion, and probably even the methods used to managage those directories.  lets take it to the lawyers to determine if that interpretation of assets is useful.  my informal consultations tell me that it is, but  we need legal 'facts' in so much as legal opinion can be called fact.

  Steve Crocker:ICANN holds no rights to the intellectual property associated with the information it publishes via the IANA function.

  Avri Doria:i think restricting the notion of asset to IP may be misleading.

  Robert Guerra:We should go and and go through the doc in more detail, please. park and flag items for discussion afterwards (such as legal questions,terms, etc)

  Steve Crocker:Anyone is free to copy the information ICANN publishes under the IANA function and reuse it at will.

  Guru Acharya:permission for redistribution does not imply absence of copyright.

  Avri Doria:or copyleft

  Guru Acharya:redistribution is just one of the many rights under copyright

  Robert Guerra:@steve you @avri and others seem to have flagged that it might be good to use other models - such as the IETF trust model - as a possible template. Might be good to have that explained in more detail after this doc gets presented

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):yes that is how I think of it Guru

  Guru Acharya:@avri: you called directories, names and methods as assets. Can you explain a little?

  Avri Doria:i am one who supports the notion of trust, whther held by ICANN or outside.  i know this group is just oriented toward ICANN holding it.

  Steve Crocker:The copyright situation has some subtleties.  The basic idea is as I've said above.  As a matter of copyright law, whomever creates a document has automatic copyright.  For information that comes to ICANN from elsewhere, the copyright belongs to the originator. 

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):As am I @avri

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):yes that is how I see it @Paul

  Greg Shatan:It may be better to think of the "right to act as the IANA Functions Operator"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):ICANN is not  in position to review itself or take remedial action etc.,  I.e. is empowered to take such diseplanary action

  Matthew Shears:What if ICANN invokes the public interest and refuses to transfer the trust?

  Donna Austin, RySG:Good question Matthew

  Guru Acharya:@greg: who gives that "right"?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):yes @greg I think of it that way any way which is perhaps helpful

  Robert Guerra:a quick google search shows that other critical resources, such as water - are held by trusts... hmm. we are getting into legal nuances that really IMHO require a lawyer to brief us and guide us on what is possible in US & California law.

  Avri Doria:Steve, an asset is an economic reosurce.  It inckudes the notions of physical assrts such as hardware and funriture, and intangible assets such as programs and database and even IP.  the domain names IANA itself uses to do its work are also definable as assets.

  Greg Shatan:Depending on how you think about it, either NTIA or ICANN; realistically it would likely involve both.

  Donna Austin, RySG:Paul: was the use of trust and trustee considered purely in a legal sense, or was it more philosophical? This may seem like a stupid questions, but I suspect it was the latter rather than the former.

  Avri Doria:so a trust is defined as the list of these assets and the rules by which those assets can be transfered.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):not a Dunn question at all @donna

  Matthew Shears:Should the IANA functions operator hold the IANA Trust?  And would the declaration provide adequate separation?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):here I think we are being phylosophical. but I remain confident the model can be wrought in a way that is legally possible  then our. nomenclature for the entities would be better established...

  Robert Guerra:I can see certain similarities with Contract co. Both are independant/walled off entities. One starts as being an external entity, and other being an independant/walled off entity  inside icann.

  Matthew Shears:And per my comment above - are we comfortable another operator holding the trust?

  Greg Shatan:@Robert - what are you identifying as a "walled off entity inside ICANN"?

  Robert Guerra:Can we agree to items Donna is mentioning now. tI assume wehave consensus  on structural improvements needed, no?

  Robert Guerra:@greg - see the trust as a walled off entity that would start life inside icann

  Seun Ojedeji:@Staff Will be leaving AC room but will stay on audio

  Greg Shatan:I'm not sure that the trust is an "entity" at all.

  Guru Acharya:@alan: It will confer onto Contract Co the "legitimacy" to award the IANA Functions Contract

  STaffan Jonson:The (IANA functions) trust would need to hold, discrete budget, independent legal advise, but also some instructions from the owners, i.e. naming community

  Matthew Shears:Difference is that ConCo is not the operator whereas ICANN in this prposal is both (I think)

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Matthew - reason for an ICANN Internal option

  Greg Shatan:Staffan -- the naming community would be the beneficiary, not the owner.

  Matthew Shears:@ Bernard - opposite I think

  STaffan Jonson:Greg: so who would be th owner

  Alan Greenberg:@Guru, The question is if challenged, how would Contract Co demeonstrate in a court that it "owned" the right to designate who is the IANA operator.

  Robert Guerra:wikipedia entry on trusts - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law  there are ....many... types of trusts... so suggest we make assumptions of  values/features (that we want and flag quesions for legal

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:+1 Robert - and we are really wasting time on this here since none of us are experts in Trust Law.*

  Greg Shatan:ICANN is the owner, but holds in trust for the beneficiary

  Guru Acharya:True. And I asked the same question earlier. You yourself answered my question by saying that the community will recognise the legitimacy of Contract Co because of the process. Regardless of whether it is created as part of the transtiion or as a result of the neuclear option.

  Donna Austin, RySG:It's the same role I've been envisaging for the MRT.

  Robert Guerra:can we do through other aspects - like possibly agreeing with Donna's suggestion of structural seperation enhancements that need to be improved in IANA

  Donna Austin, RySG:Paul: in the event that it was agreed to remove the IANA function, is it the intention that an RFP would be conducted or the IANA Department would be moved to some other organisation.

  Sivasubramanian M:There is another way to look at the concept of the Trust. :  Let's set aside the DNS for a moment.  Assume that ICANN has wealth and income.  Legally,  it owns the wealth and resources.  But, when it assumes Trusteeship, it starts behaving as if any of the wealth or income does NOT belong to itself.  It starts considering even its own wealth and its own income as entrusted to itself, to be utilized for the benefit of the whole world. If this concept is applied to the functions of the DNS resources that it coordinates, it implies fairness.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Cheryl: the USG has resources and clout that a Guardian will never have.

  Guru Acharya:I wonder if the trust model is truly internal to ICANN. Trust is a separate legal entity in most jurisdictions. And the grantor/author is also usually a distinct legal entity. Maybe Paul can help clarify who are the three entities that are part of the trust i.e. trustee, grantor and beneficiary.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Doesn't the Guardian have bylaw mandated power?

  Paul Szyndler:What "IT" is, is the same question we have had regarding Contract Co.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:+1 @Paul

  Greg Shatan:Contract Co. is at last a legally recognized entity, as a corporation, and thus has a well-defined set of rights.

  Greg Shatan:last = legal rights.

  Avri Doria:i beleive the trust is a legal instrument held by a person, either natural or corprate.  and the guardian defines what happens with that trust.

  Greg Shatan:Relying on "magic" concerns me.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Greg: a corporate entity with no shareholders but no legs either

  Kurt Pritz:I agree with Guru. I am for the “internal” model. I don’t see the difference between the trust and MRT in operation. If ICANN fails to perform the MRT or the trust will seek to move the IANA function elsewhere.

  Greg Shatan:Nonprofits never have shareholders under US law.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@gerg: but with no resources, a Contract Co. has no legs whatsoever

  Greg Shatan:Kurt, the trust is not a thing and has no powers.  The Guardian is the thing with the power.

  Robert Guerra:The community would all need to be onboard with the trust model. If not, lack of consensus would cause ICG to get back to us. Congress would also have to be onboard , as the omn-bus budget authorization bill requires a hearing for them to be briefed (and sign off) on the process.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):agree @alan

  Robert Guerra:let's make assumptions - yes, this is possible - and move forward on certain aspects not yet presented

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Alan: this proposal has been on the table for less than 24 hours, I think the discussion is valid.

  Greg Shatan:@Olivier, so the Guardian has the same problem, but also the problem of not being a legal entity.

  Matthew Shears:what if the Trust were held eslewehere (some other existing entity) and not by ICANN?

  Greg Shatan:+1 to Donna

  Robert Guerra:a suggestion - can someone develop a diagram/illustration summarizing this (new) doc. it might help conceptualize.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):that also can be explored @matthew

  Matthew Shears:discussions is very valuable

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):agree

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:No Greg. The relationship between a Trust and a Trustee is clearly supported by Trust Law

  Avri Doria:i think these questions of how the guardian affects the trust are the same as we have with how a  MRT controls a contract co.

  Donna Austin, RySG:agreed Avri

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:The relationship between Contract Co. and MRT is supported by the threat of litigation.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):many of these questions. actually

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:these are really two different things

  Robert Guerra:as RFP 4 co-chair - would also be helpful if changes to existing arrangements, tranisition implications and timeline could be detailed for this proposal

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):y need. the Expert Legal Advice

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:I have lost audio on PS

  Guru Acharya:Who is the person with the female voice? Request you to announce your name before you speak.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:and the threat of litigation is an empty threat when this threat is made by an entity with no financial resources

  Greg Shatan:Agree with Cheryl on need for legal advice

  Matthew Shears:yep

  Paul Szyndler:+1 About legal advice

  Grace Abuhamad:@Guru -- this is Cheryl Langdon Orr

  Guru Acharya:@Grace: THanks

  Robert Guerra:+1 for legal referral

  Greg Shatan:@Olivier -- equally true of both models -- but if Guardian is not a legal entity it can't go to court, assets or no.

  Alan Greenberg:@Donna, yes, of course we need discussion, but the focus inrecent discussion has been something that we cannot address right now, and something that it shares with the Contract Co model. I want to see wheether the overall model, IF BUILDDABLE"" is acceptable. zzzzzzzzzzjordon Carter has said that it concenctrates too much power in ICANN and is thus unacceptable to him. I want to hear how others feel.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Alan, I offered to divert the conversation to additional structural changes, but I didn't get any traction.

  Robert Guerra:any trsut lawyers coming to the icann meeting in singapore?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):and I support that Donna

  Steve Crocker:With apology, I need to break off now.

  Alan Greenberg:@Donna, perhaps try again. When next speakers already hav their comments ready, sometimes orthoganal suggestions get lost.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):female voices on this call are either Donna. or me Cheryl. I was the last female speaker  FYI 

  Alan Greenberg:@Greg, it is the SAME thing if Contract Co decides no not follow MRT orders.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Greg, agree - the accountability discussion is probably more important to the internal option than the contract co.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):or some combination there off Greg

  Alan Greenberg:@Donna, internal supports have said that from day-1

  Alan Greenberg:supporters

  Donna Austin, RySG:agreed Alan

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Donna  Yes in any "Internal to ICANN" proposal, the NEED to enhance Accountability is greater

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):exactly Greg some of this goes to overall accountability mechanisms

  Greg Shatan:@Alan -- Contract Co does not come with the baggage of ICANN.  It can be much more easily set up to execute on MRT's orders.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Greg: that's right, Contract Co. comes with all the risk of a newco.

  Matthew Shears:can we do a side by side of RFP3 and RFP3b options - might highlight further differences and similarities

  Allan MacGillivray:Greg - is that an old hand?

  Greg Shatan:@Olivier -- agree, and that's a low level of risk, since we get to set it up as we see fit, and it can be set up for a single purpose.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):I like the side by side option as much of this has more so hilarity than differences

  Greg Shatan:@Matthew -a "matrix" might be helpful.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Greg: is it possible to include questions about a trust in the legal advice being sought re the Contract Co?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):we MUST in my view get that advice

  Maarten Simon, SIDN:clear that we have to

  Greg Shatan:@Donna, there are already questions about trusts, but I (or someone) needs to revise them to be a bit more specific to this model and the key questions being asked.

  Donna Austin, RySG:agreed with Matthew on matrix

  Robert Guerra:matrix could include - existing arrangements, and how they would change with proposals

  Greg Shatan:We have been at this so long that RFP 3 has now become "traditional." :-)

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:+1

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):exactly @robert

  Matthew Shears:At the level that Greg was doing for the MRT and CSC though - needs to be granular

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:yes

  Donna Austin, RySG:I have RFP3B in my calendar for 28 Jan

  Grace Abuhamad:Apologies for the error

  Grace Abuhamad:We are working to resolve

  Greg Shatan:At the top level, everything is possible....

  Maarten Simon, SIDN:I think Paul the board could take such decision because it gets somethinh it does not have: IANA

  Robert Guerra:Paul - illustration/diagrams in next instance would be very helpful IMHO

  Paul Szyndler:@Robert - noted.

  Robert Guerra:thanks

  Greg Shatan:I've never heard of a Golden Bylaw (other than in ICANN discussions) and brief research has been unhelpful.  Any references would be appreciated.

  Donna Austin, RySG:Sorry all, I have to drop off.

  Paul Szyndler:@Greg - the first version of "the auDA proposal" floated the idea of a Golden bylaw

  Maarten Simon, SIDN:sorry have to leave now

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):Tue and Thur would be best

  Robert Guerra:tentative wed rfp4

  Grace Abuhamad:Ok so Tuesday 14:00 and Thursday 21:00 for RFP3Band RFP4 Wednesday 14:00

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:bye all

  Bart Boswinkel:Bye all

  jaap akkerhuis (SSAC):Bye all

  Sivasubramanian M:Bye

  STaffan Jonson:bye all

  Greg Shatan:Paul -- But does it exist anywhere but your proposal?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP Region):bye