[CWG-Stewardship] My concerns with the draft proposal and an alternative option

[Guru Acharya]

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?

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
wrote:

> Dear Avri,
>
> On 01/12/2014 17:16, Avri Doria wrote:
> > On 01-Dec-14 17:02, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >> But my main reason for opposition is that I am far from convinced
> >> that all of the questions I and others have can be viably answered.
> >
> > As far as I can tell they have been answered.  You just have not
> > accepted the answers you have been given.
> > which is of course your right.  But from my reading they have been
> > answered multiple times in different ways.
>
> I am sorry, I must have missed the messages. Please point me to the
> archived message(s) which provide(s):
>
> 1. Proposed contracting entity structure; PRT (or MRT) entity structure.
> 2. Jurisdiction of contracting company. Jurisdiction of PRT (MRT) entity.
> 3. Accountability processes that will be ingrained in the bylaws of the
> above two entities.
>
> At that point, I might feel better about delegating those two functions
> to new legal entities.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141201/36a08246/attachment.html>