[CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3

[Greg Shatan]

Andrew,

By George, I think you've got it.

Greg

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 04:32:40PM +0000, Martin Boyle wrote:
> > I think that Greg is right, that we were not mandated in the CWG to look
> at numbers or protocol parameters.  While that might sit uneasily, I’m not
> sure I really know about the flow of funding or the
> accountability/stewardship role in the light of Milton’s assertion.
> >
>
> I believe here are two completely different things here.
>
> 1.  The IANA functions -- all of them -- move from inside ICANN to the
> affiliate.  This is how ICANN performs the IANA functions.  The agreements
> with other parties can remain between ICANN and those other parties, but
> that does not affect the "how ICANN gets IANA done."
>
> 2.  The names IANA function gets all the accountability rules and so
> on we've been talking about.  That's the "names community proposal".
> This part really is names-only.
>
> If follows from these two premises, however, that ICANN needs also to
> undertake some sort of agreement with PTI about how the other
> communities' needs get satisfied.  Presumably, if the other
> communities maintain an agreement with ICANN, then ICANN concludes an
> agreement with PTI that says, "You implement that."  The details of
> how that is worked out, however, are not our problem and we don't need
> to have an opinion about it reflected in this document, I think.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150421/7e156c78/attachment.html>