<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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 <a href="http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g186525-i63947201-Edinburgh_Scotland.html">http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g186525-i63947201-Edinburgh_Scotland.html</a>).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Gomes, Chuck <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Seun,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Chuck<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></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""> <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<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> <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><span class=""><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></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)<u></u><u></u></p><div><div class="h5">
<p>Cheers!<br>
sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 20 Apr 2015 19:26, "Andrew Sullivan" <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></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" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<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><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>