[CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V3.2

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

On this issue the ICANN names solution should presume that ICANN remain
the service contractor with the other operational communities in any
model.  It is only if these other operational communities  initiate a
request for a change to a direct service contract with IANA that it
becomes an issue.  As far as I know they have neither done so, nor
desire to do so.

I do not see an ambiguity in this.  While there may be an opportunity
for them to think about it, there is no requirement or implication that
they do so.

avri

On 19-Apr-15 00:53, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Unstated in the above is that, depending on whether we have
> fundamental bylaws or an affiliate, there are either one or two
> options for other communities. ICANN can be indifferent to how to
> proceed on this, but the other communities may need to make a
> decision:
>
> • Continue the agreement with ICANN, who then undertake to have PTI do
> the work for those other communities. This is the only option
> available if PTI is a department of ICANN under some fundamental
> bylaw(s), but it remains available in case PTI is an affiliate.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150419/afe8f0a0/attachment-0001.html>