I would disagree with Seun, but for different reasons than Chuck.  First, a multistakeholder oversight body of some sort has been part of every plan we've discussed, so claiming similarity (MRT/PRF) between any two models based on a similarity among all models proves nothing (other than that there may be no better arguments to use).  PTI and Contract Co. could not be more different (or less equivalent).  PTI would be an operating company, with employees, assets, expenses and an ongoing business operation.  Contract Co. would be a holding company, with virtually none of the above.  PTI would be a party providing services under an agreement, responsible for performing every day.  Contract Co. would be a party contracting for services to be provided, with activities limited to exercising oversight.  PTI would be controlled by ICANN, through a single member structure (or conceivably controlled by three members, under an alternate scenarios).  Contract Co. would not be controlled by any third party.  If this is an attempt at perspective, I have to say it is rather "skewed" (see http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g186525-i63947201-Edinburgh_Scotland.html).

Greg

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

Seun,

 

I would strongly disagree with you that “There is seemingly no difference in structures of present model compared to contract-co in that legal still has PTI and PRF which is equivalence of Contract-co and MRT.”   Just to name a couple big differences: complexity and increased costs.

 

Chuck

 

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:50 PM
To: Andrew Sullivan
Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board

 

Just to put in perspective. There is seemingly no difference in structures of present model compared to contract-co in that legal still has PTI and PRF which is equivalence of Contract-co and MRT. The major role of the 2 options is where I think the difference lies; where the legal version acts as the IANA operator(contactee), the contract-co version acts as the IANA owner (contractor)

Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 20 Apr 2015 19:26, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 02:20:15PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
> through a membership model); perhaps you are thinking of the MRT role as
> you cite the dangers of "Contract Co. land."

Yep.  The proposal that I saw last year that involved Contract Co and
MRT and so on looked to me like a way of building all the structures
of ICANN all over again, only without tearing down ICANN.  I thought
then and, having reviewed it since, think now that such an approach
would not yield a stable system.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

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