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

[CW Lists]

Dear Milton:

Nice try, but No. 

CW

PS:	 I fail to see the interest of the NCUC community in separating the gTLD interest in IANA from the rest of the ICANN community.
	As you may recall, I remain concerned as to the risks to the Internet arising from an eventual capture of IANA/PTI by Registrars and Registries, and the disproportionate influence of new gTLDs and their owners in a few jurisdictions, 	whereas the underlying mandate of the IANA transition is to respect the global multistakeholder interests of the Internet community as a whole.


On 04 May 2015, at 16:38, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  
> 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/c9ee119e/attachment-0001.html>