Hi,

Among his comment Alan made the following:

Do we not also need a note saying that so far, we have not addressed .int. And perhaps also the RZM, to the extent that it is within our scope. Sub note: it would be good to have some clarity on exactly wat part of the RZM *IS* within our scope.

Strongly agree.

The proposal clearly called for the MRT to be incorporated, a clear difference from the intent in the Contract Co. model

I think there is still some discussion among proponents of the external trust model. I personally support the incorparation of the MRT as an association and see it as the guarantor, or whatever we call it, of the Trust. I do not think, however, that this was an essential part of the original proposal. So if something is added, it should not be definitive on the incorporation point - I think that sort of fine point is somewhat dependent on what we learn about the various legal regimes for Trusts and trust-like mechanisms.

I think that it very important to add that all of the Internal to ICANN models PRESUME that the CCWG-Accountability will be able to deliver iron-clad accountability measures to ensure that the MS community cannot be overruled by the ICANN Board.

I agree the absolute imperative of this for the Internal model is one of the major motivational differences with the External models.

avri

On 02-Feb-15 00:33, Alan Greenberg wrote:

Attached is a copy with a number of comments and suggested questions. Alan

At 01/02/2015 12:40 PM, Bernard Turcotte wrote:

All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting and the updated timeline.

Questions and comments welcome.

Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be added to this document which would provide useful feedback for our work.

Cheers.

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