[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal

[Seun Ojedeji]

Well I don't think it makes sense to propose on behalf of the 3 communities
without consulting the affected communities pre-PC. (Especially as the
other 2 communities already submitted their proposals to ICG)

Also if your explanation is the case, then there is still need to reword
the statement to refer to "IANA functions department" and not "IANA naming
functions department".

That said, as it stands, I am no longer sure I understand our proposal but
again I am just one out of the entire CWG who may have a good
understanding. I just like to flag that there seem to be a lot of ambiguity
that would be important to clarify before going for PC.

Preparing a FAQ list could be a good start.

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Apr 2015 18:38, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> I don't think there is "IANA naming function department" but there is
> "IANA functions department" So i propose the following:
>
> The IANA naming functions, related administrative staff and resources,
> processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI from the
> exiting "IANA functions department"
>
> MM: Not quite right. It is the entire IANA functions department, not just
> the naming-related parts of it, that would be transferred to PTI.
>
> The IANA portion of the ICANN budget *related to naming* would be subject
> to.......
>
> MM: Again, it makes no sense to keep the other parts of the IANA functions
> separate from the naming parts. The entire department must be legally
> separation.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150419/3cec5476/attachment-0001.html>