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