[CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi Greg,

I think you have just said the difference I mentioned in details. However
let's not argue about this since it won't take us anywhere. Let's just move
on.

Thanks

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 21 Apr 2015 02:49, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would disagree with Seun, but for different reasons than Chuck.  First,
> a multistakeholder oversight body of some sort has been part of every plan
> we've discussed, so claiming similarity (MRT/PRF) between any two models
> based on a similarity among all models proves nothing (other than that
> there may be no better arguments to use).  PTI and Contract Co. could not
> be more different (or less equivalent).  PTI would be an operating company,
> with employees, assets, expenses and an ongoing business operation.
> Contract Co. would be a holding company, with virtually none of the above.
> PTI would be a party providing services under an agreement, responsible for
> performing every day.  Contract Co. would be a party contracting for
> services to be provided, with activities limited to exercising oversight.
> PTI would be controlled by ICANN, through a single member structure (or
> conceivably controlled by three members, under an alternate scenarios).
> Contract Co. would not be controlled by any third party.  If this is an
> attempt at perspective, I have to say it is rather "skewed" (see
> http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g186525-i63947201-Edinburgh_Scotland.html
> ).
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
>>  Seun,
>>
>>
>>
>> I would strongly disagree with you that “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.”
>>   Just to name a couple big differences: complexity and increased costs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji
>> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2015 2:50 PM
>> *To:* Andrew Sullivan
>> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150421/e3f5ec8c/attachment-0001.html>