[CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for … Two additional webinars on 6-7 May

[Gomes, Chuck]

I think you may be right on this Milton but I guess it is a cc decision.

Chuck

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 10:38 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Martin Boyle; Chris Disspain
Cc: CW Lists; Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship at icann.org; elise.gerich at icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for … Two additional webinars on 6-7 May


From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
I am fine with this.  I see no problem at all that it is handled differently for gTLDs and ccTLDs.  Also, if the ccTLD registries are fine with this, that is what matters.

My only suggestion is that we are clear in communicating the difference in the IFO functions with regard to ccTLDs and gTLDs in cases where it is relevant.

MM: Repeating a question buried in my longer message from yesterday: would it be advisable for the ccTLDs to negotiate their own SLA with the PTI? Does this address the potential for the IANA contracts/SLAs not responding to the distinct needs of both communities?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150504/d315e129/attachment.html>