[Internal-cg] Contracting

[Alan Barrett]

On Sun, 03 May 2015, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> There seem to be roughly three schools of thought on this within 
> the ICG:
>
> (1) We should say nothing as a group, or I as chair should 
> forward queries to ICANN if we receive them from any operational 
> community.
>
> (2) We should query the ICANN board and/or staff about reports 
> we’ve seen concerning recent negotiations, seek clarification, 
> and re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led 
> processes.
>
> (3) We should re-iterate our position about transparent, 
> community-led processes without direct reference to reports 
> about recent negotiations.
>
> [...]
>
> (2) and (3) are at odds with each other, however, since 
> the former would require acknowledging recent reports and 
> specifically asking about them, and the latter would require us 
> to avoid referencing those same reports.

I think that (2) and (3) are not incompatible.  Indeed, your 
suggestion in the next paragrah seems to combine them, first 
issuing a neutral statement as in (3), and then a specific question 
as in (2).

> My suggestion for a middle ground is for us to issue a neutral 
> statement that re-iterates our position (a la (3)) and then 
> forward that statement to the ICANN board and staff with a 
> further query. I’ve taken a shot at drafting both of those 
> pieces below. I’ve edited the statement to try to make it more 
> neutral. Feedback is of course welcome.

I support this course of action, and your proposed text (quoted below).

--apb (Alan Barrett)

> Proposed statement and note:
>
> Dear <insert appropriate ICANN recipient(s) here>,
>
> The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition 
> process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the 
> statement below. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with 
> provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts 
> or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be 
> made public.
>
> Thanks, The ICG
>
> --
>
> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements
>
> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship 
> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun 
> discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements 
> called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG 
> expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition 
> process -- that all interested parties express their opinions 
> about the transition proposals openly and transparently 
> within the community processes. This includes opinions about 
> the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with 
> contracts or other agreements between the communities and the 
> IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the 
> opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the 
> community processes as early as possible.