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

[Brenden Kuerbis]

There are a numerous options as to how the numbers and protocols
communities might contract for the IANA services that the CWG is
recommending reside in a legally separated PTI. At this stage, it would be
presumptuous to know how those communities might do that.  We should simply
let them respond on the record in public comment.
<http://internetgovernance.org>

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>  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.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>   [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150419/dc31e222/attachment.html>