On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:38:10PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
New. Contract. Therefore it would not be difficult at all for the RIRs to develop this new contract in a way that named PTI, rather than ICANN Inc., as the contractor.
That's probably true. The IETF, however, is in a different boat, as it doesn't think it needs such an agreement, so that is a cost of some forms of the legal separation that are not present for other forms. I made this argument about some of the different hybrid-model proposals before, and it still seems to me to be a factor worth considering. To some extent, a proposal has to present both low risk to transition and low risk to the long-term goals. Balancing this is a delicate act, I think. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com