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

[Gomes, Chuck]

While I do not agree that it would be out of scope, let me put that aside and ask you a question Avri:  How would you propose addressing the registry concern about the possibility of registry fees (which of course would likely be paid by registrars and ultimately registrants) be raised to cover IANA costs that are presently paid mostly via registry/registrar/registrant fees?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:37 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas

hi,

i disagree with the idea of earmarking  Registry funds as was suggested.  I agree that ICANN has to continue to provide funds for the transition and for the new IFO,  and that this needs to be plain in the ICANN budget. But to get into telling ICANN, as part of this exercise, how if should allocate the fund within the ICANN budget, is out of scope  for this process as far as I can tell.

All that should matter is that ICANN continues to support the IFO, and not that it should do so by earmarking registry fees.

avri



On 29-May-15 10:28, Duchesneau, Stephanie wrote:
> Hi Milton,
>
> I agree with the RySG approach too of earmarking fees regardless of 
> who the IFO is.
>
> The DT-N comment simply was that this matter needs to be handled 
> within the CWG's work, without speaking to how. I am not sure that 
> DT-N/X/SR is the right place which is why I deferred to the CWG or 
> potentially a different DT in the comment.
>
> Stephanie
>
> *Stephanie Duchesneau** *
> *Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4^th  Floor, Washington, DC 20006
> *Office:** *+1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040  *Fax: *+1.202.533.2623 */* www.neustar.biz
> <http://www.neustar.biz/>     
>
> From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com 
> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
> Date: Friday, May 29, 2015 at 10:15 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>, 
> "Duchesneau, Stephanie" <Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us 
> <mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us>>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org 
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org 
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
> Cc: "avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org 
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
> Subject: RE: Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
>
> 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 
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> *Cc:* avri at acm.org <mailto: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).
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship