[CWG-Stewardship] Clarification on PTI scope

[Seun Ojedeji]

Thanks for your response Xavier, just so this is not mixed up unnecessarily
as the wording of your response seems not to answer my question(it even
seem to be authenticating my concern); the CWG even in February did not
propose what was reflected in the budget published on the 5th neither does
the conversion happened post-ICANN55.

However what I have gotten here(from others) is that it may indeed be a
mistake and there is a common understanding of the status-quo, which is the
most important.

I will leave it at that.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 23 Apr 2016 11:56 p.m., "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez at icann.org>
wrote:

> 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>
> 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> on behalf of Christopher
> Wilkinson < lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> Date: Saturday 23 April 2016 at 20:46
> To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com >
> Cc: " cwg-stewardship at icann.org" < 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 > 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> 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/20160424/a1865137/attachment-0001.html>