<div dir="ltr">Olivier, I do not understand why you are treating PRT/MRT as a separate legal entity and raising questions about its by-laws and jurisdiction?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" target="_blank">ocl@gih.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Avri,<br>
<span class=""><br>
On 01/12/2014 17:16, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
> On 01-Dec-14 17:02, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
>> But my main reason for opposition is that I am far from convinced<br>
>> that all of the questions I and others have can be viably answered.<br>
><br>
> As far as I can tell they have been answered. You just have not<br>
> accepted the answers you have been given.<br>
> which is of course your right. But from my reading they have been<br>
> answered multiple times in different ways.<br>
<br>
</span>I am sorry, I must have missed the messages. Please point me to the<br>
archived message(s) which provide(s):<br>
<br>
1. Proposed contracting entity structure; PRT (or MRT) entity structure.<br>
2. Jurisdiction of contracting company. Jurisdiction of PRT (MRT) entity.<br>
3. Accountability processes that will be ingrained in the bylaws of the<br>
above two entities.<br>
<br>
At that point, I might feel better about delegating those two functions<br>
to new legal entities.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>