<p dir="ltr">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)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!<br>
sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 20 Apr 2015 19:26, "Andrew Sullivan" <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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><br>
</blockquote></div>