[CWG-Stewardship] Initial Discussion Draft on Transition Models

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:41:15PM +0000, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:
> 
> III.C talks about CSC.  In the case of a full legal separation with
> independent governance, would the CSC be needed at all?  Presumably
> the arrangements between PRI and their customers would be a
> contractual one, and as such the management of such contractual
> disputes ought to be via those contracts, and not through an extra
> body.  Or is the point that the way such a contractual arrangement
> would solve such disputes ought to be along the lines of the CSC ?
> 
> Do you mean PTI ? It’s fundamental from a governmental perspective (and also for the ccTLDs I think..) that we don’t create a model with requirements for establishing a contractual relationship between the IANA functions operator (PTI) and the ccTLDs. This is an absolute no go.
> 

Aha, of course.  So the issue is that ccTLDs want/need to have a
mechanism where they can take issues with PTI if PTI is not following
the agreed-upon policy (e.g. a redelegation request for a ccTLD that
legitimately came from the recognized government of the relevant
country).  This is instead of taking the issue up with ICANN which
would then, as the contracting party for the names, would take the
issue up with PTI?  I guess I envisaged the latter approach, but I
guess I can see why someone might find that less desirable.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com