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

[Greg Shatan]

I agree with Avri.  It is certainly not my impression that people are
leaning away from an affiliate.

I would also say that, if both parties to the MoU agree that ICANN can
assign it to an affiliate, there should be no real issues with doing so.
Alternately, the parties could agree that ICANN will provide the services
via an affiliate, while keeping ICANN as the contractual party.  In other
words, this is basically a non-issue.

Greg

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 19-Apr-15 19:03, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> and because people seemed to be leaning away
> from an affiliate anyway
>
>
> I had not gotten that impression.  It is still the compromise point
> between an Internal and Contract Co ( still waiting in the background in
> the event there is no compromise, I expect).  I thought it was still very
> much in the mix.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>   [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150420/b19c7e75/attachment.html>