[CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas

[Gomes, Chuck]

I am not Stephanie as you know, but I think you got it right Milton.

Chuck

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:08 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Duchesneau, Stephanie; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Cc: avri at acm.org
Subject: RE: Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas

I find the statement about "Separation Costs" below to be very strange. If there is a separation process and it results in separation, PTI is "fired" and no one covers its expenses. It goes out of business. ICANN contracts with someone else. For that reason, I agree in principle with RySG concept of earmarked or set-side funds for the IFO regardless of who it is. Stephanie, is there something about this statement I did not understand correctly?



Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150529/7be11af6/attachment.html>