<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Seun,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I would strongly disagree with you that “</span>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.<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">” Just to name a couple big differences: complexity and increased costs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Seun Ojedeji<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 20, 2015 2:50 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Andrew Sullivan<br>
<b>Cc:</b> cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>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)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Cheers!<br>
sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 20 Apr 2015 19:26, "Andrew Sullivan" <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 02:20:15PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
> through a membership model); perhaps you are thinking of the MRT role as<br>
> you cite the dangers of "Contract Co. land."<br>
<br>
Yep. The proposal that I saw last year that involved Contract Co and<br>
MRT and so on looked to me like a way of building all the structures<br>
of ICANN all over again, only without tearing down ICANN. I thought<br>
then and, having reviewed it since, think now that such an approach<br>
would not yield a stable system.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
_______________________________________________<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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>