Greg, this document does not include a question about the MRT-Contract Co. relationship that I have raised numerous times. We have repeatedly said that the MRT is an incorporated entity but simply a "committee" (or something similar) with no specific parent. Contract Co is bound to take its orders from the MRT, and the MRT is bound to maintain its MS character as specified by Contract Co.

How are these two bound together to ensure that the bilateral commitments are ensured?

As mentioned in the questionnaire, the MRT could be a part of Contract Co, or even its Board, but they we have created a new ICANN-like body that we explicitly said we would not do. So that cannot be a solution.

Also, there needs to be reference to the concept that Contract Co is bare bones, little or no staff, and a Board that has no mandate to do anything but follow orders from the MRT.

Alan

At 14/01/2015 06:23 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

All:

Attached is a draft scope document intended to refine our request for independent legal counsel. Your comments would be most appreciated at the soonest time.

Greg
Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
name="CWG-Legal Questions (1).docx"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CWG-Legal Questions (1).docx"
X-Attachment-Id: f_i4xc496d0

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