[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 07:17:26PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> reject having their MoU move to PTI. While Andrew expressed some
> concerns about that shift

I should be clear, if I haven't been already, that a significant part
of my concern is putting such a negotiation on the critical path to
transition.  I'm not necessarily opposed to such an eventuality, but
it seems to me that actually working out the details would take time,
and might fail.  As a matter of prudence, then, proceeding in a way
that does not actually require such a shift is better.

>, Sidley made it clear that the MoU between
> ICANN and IOTC can be assigned to PTI and this posed no problem

My reading of Sidley's response was that this was normally possible.
They seemed to be unaware of the actual agreement as it stands, but in
the interests of time and because people seemed to be leaning away
from an affiliate anyway I thought it was a distraction to continue
pressing the issue.

Best regards,

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com