<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
<br>
prematurely sent. needed to remove the dangling Finally and sign
it.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20-Feb-15 18:18, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:54E7C0B6.6070004@acm.org" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20-Feb-15 16:50, Milton L Mueller
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:3d131859b97e47868ae33bf750497249@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>My question: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Does this model provide for
separability?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
First it provides structural separation in all configurations.
That is a first level of severability and hopefully as much as
really is ever needed. Additionally, in this model, ICANN would
have the same ability to pick another provider, or perhaps a
redundant provider, just as the names or protocols can now. This
is made possible by virtue of structural separation and the
defintion of SLA/MOUs across a corporate boundary.<br>
<br>
Further levels of separability can, however, be obtained in the
Shared Service Arrangement configuration or the finally in the
Free Standing configuration. <br>
<br>
Finally<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>