[CWG-Stewardship] Draft Scope Document for Legal Counsel

[Alan Greenberg]

Greg, this document does not include a question about the 
MRT-Contract Co. relationship that I have raised numerous times. We 
have repeatedly said that the MRT is an incorporated entity but 
simply a "committee" (or something similar) with no specific parent. 
Contract Co is bound to take its orders from the MRT, and the MRT is 
bound to maintain its MS character as specified by Contract Co.

How are these two bound together to ensure that the bilateral 
commitments are ensured?

As mentioned in the questionnaire, the MRT could be a part of 
Contract Co, or even its Board, but they we have created a new 
ICANN-like body that we explicitly said we would not do. So that 
cannot be a solution.

Also, there needs to be reference to the concept that Contract Co is 
bare bones, little or no staff, and a Board that has no mandate to do 
anything but follow orders from the MRT.

Alan




At 14/01/2015 06:23 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

>All:
>
>
>Attached is a draft scope document intended to refine our request 
>for independent legal counsel.  Your comments would be most 
>appreciated at the soonest time.
>
>
>Greg
>Content-Type: 
>application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
>         name="CWG-Legal Questions (1).docx"
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CWG-Legal Questions (1).docx"
>X-Attachment-Id: f_i4xc496d0
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20150114/b0ab1d71/attachment.html>