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

[Seun Ojedeji]

I don't see the inaccuracy in my statement; my point is that informal
interaction with some RIR members should not determine how CWG acts/reacts.
We are in agreement that no formal statement has come out from the RIR
community on this subject and i think it's because we've not asked them.

Maybe the PC is then our way of formerly asking them.

Just for the record, I don't think change in IANA management to a yet to be
clearly defined/tested structures should be seen as "no difference"
especially if the community thinks everything is running well under the
current management.

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Apr 2015 21:33, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Seun,
>
> Please try to be accurate. I haven’t made any assertions about what “a
> whole community wants”
>
> I did say I have talked to people in RIRs who might prefer a legally
> separated IANA.
>
> In fact, your comments are supporting my point that RIRs have not made any
> formal statements either way.
>
> And as noted countless times before, because the RIRs have yet to write
> their contract, it shouldn’t make any difference to them whether their
> future contract is with IANA services provided by a department of ICANN or
> by an affiliate.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 19, 2015 4:24 PM
> *To:* Milton L Mueller
> *Cc:* avri; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal
> Structure for CWG Proposal
>
>
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 19 Apr 2015 20:19, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> ....And the contract between the RIRs and ICANN or PTI hasn’t been written
> yet, so it could easily designate PTI as the counterparty. No one from the
> numbers community has expressed any concern about that, and having been in
> contact with several people in that community I suspect that, as with
> protocols, some might prefer that.
> >
> SO: I happen to be involved in the numbers community and I am not sure I
> have seen any formal discussion about what you say above Milton. I think
> it's important we base our actions on transparently provided facts.
> Sometime ago the chair of CRISP formerly wrote the CWG asking that they be
> informed of any part of the names proposal that could affect them. Noting
> from the CWG has been sent in that regard so I think it's a little out of
> line to make assumption on what a whole community wants.
>
> Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20150419/33d65bf6/attachment.html>