[CWG-Stewardship] Clarification on PTI scope

[Xavier J. Calvez]

All,
I confirm that what appears in the budget document under public comment since 5 March relative to PTI is a result of a proposal designed in the course of February, pre-ICANN55 and all the evolutive conversations that have been happening since then.

Thank you.
Best,

Xavier

On Apr 23, 2016, at 14:37, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:

Correct. The budget document is dated 5 March and a lot has changed since then. There is no doubt that all three functions will be performed under the auspices of PTI.

Alan

At 23/04/2016 04:07 PM, James Gannon wrote:

I think this is a leftover item from the initial ICANN staff drafting of PTI, which clarification that the IOTF made to the implementing ICANN staff on our first call and have resolved that as per the CWG proposal PTI will be managing all 3 functions.

-JG

From: < cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Christopher Wilkinson < lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
Date: Saturday 23 April 2016 at 20:46
To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> >
Cc: " cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" < cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Clarification on PTI scope

Good catch, Seun.

There is no doubt in my mind that PTI was defined as the successor to all the IANA functions.

Regards

CW




On 23 Apr 2016, at 21:27, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> > wrote:

Dear all,

>From my understanding of PTI was that it's going to be the new IANA that will serve the 3OCs (even though numbers and protocols contracts with ICANN).

If my high-level understanding above is right, then i think there may be something wrong in the fy17 draft budget which has just been brought to my attention.

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-fy17-05mar16-en.pdf

Page 25 item 4 says the following:

PTI- New legal entity, destined to host activities and costs of the IANA functions in service of
the *Names community*

Then page 27 seem to imply that PTI will indeed serve the names alone. At the moment, I have not considered the application of this new arrangement and unless I am missing something, I don't think this was what was proposed.

Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20160423/e49a1fb5/attachment.html>