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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Just for the record, it's a +1 for me on Olivier's questions.

I like to see what the claimed  multistakeholder PRT will look like....I
hope it better include those beyond ICANN community...Let's see how that
fashion out. It will also be good to run a future scenario case test on the
proposed composition.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 1 Dec 2014 17:32, "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/20141201/90495169/attachment.html>