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 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