I agree with Avri and Greg, I haven’t seen any move away from an affiliate, quite the opposite, my personal impression has been that there is increasing support for it as we flesh out some of the details.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 5:15 AM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal

I agree with Avri.  It is certainly not my impression that people are leaning away from an affiliate.

I would also say that, if both parties to the MoU agree that ICANN can assign it to an affiliate, there should be no real issues with doing so.  Alternately, the parties could agree that ICANN will provide the services via an affiliate, while keeping ICANN as the contractual party.  In other words, this is basically a non-issue.

Greg

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

On 19-Apr-15 19:03, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

and because people seemed to be leaning away
from an affiliate anyway 

I had not gotten that impression.  It is still the compromise point between an Internal and Contract Co ( still waiting in the background in the event there is no compromise, I expect).  I thought it was still very much in the mix.

avri

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship