[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] New Deadline - 26 July 2019 - input on updated draft Final Report and outstanding questions

[John Levine]

> The point is that ICANN can create a structure/department that can act
> autonomously

I'm sorry, but that completely misses the point of PTI.  It exists as a 
separate subsidiary because it has multiple clients: the RIRs, the IETF, 
and ICANN.  As I may have mentioned once or twice, that's irrelevant to 
this CCWG.

ICANN can authorize a department to act however it wants so long as it 
complies with ICANN's mission and US and California law.  There is no need 
to add extra layers of corporate or other structure.  All that's needed is 
a resolution from the board setting it up.

By the way, Alan reminded me that I conflated options B and C.  The 
captive foundation is option C.  Option B, is as far as I can tell, the 
same as option A with extra layers of bureaucracy which, of course, would 
again add complexity with no advantage to anyone.  The only option that 
makes any sense is A.

R's,
John

> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 5:58 AM John Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
>>
>> PTI's structure and functions have no relationship to the ccwg's. I do not understand why people keep bringing it up.
>>
>> PTI does administrative activities under contract to icann and others. It does nothing even a little bit like giving out grants.