[CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board

[Seun Ojedeji]

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 20 Apr 2015 19:26, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> 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 at anvilwalrusden.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/fa9c7542/attachment.html>