<p dir="ltr">Yeah that's correct and it's based on the assumption that RIR/IETF would want to contract with PTI. So even if they accept, the principle already says IANA operator is a "unit providing the service", on what basis would PTI then be recognised as the operator? Considering the duo will most likely be interested in dealing with IANA then I presume the contract could as well be signed with the unit.</p>
<p dir="ltr">All that said, I hope we do remember the scope of work is to transition oversight of NTIA and not to transition the IANA operator; The practical application of section of the principle that implies everything is fine with IANA at the moment needs to be evident in our proposal. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 8 Apr 2015 00:39, "Milton L Mueller" <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Let me reiterate an important detail that many seem to be overlooking.
<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">The RIRs CRISP team proposed the following:
<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">“The Internet Number Community proposes that a new contract be established between the IANA Numbering Services Operator
and the five RIRs. The following is a proposal to replace the current NTIA IANA agreement with a new contract that more directly reflects and enforces the IANA Numbering Services Operator’s accountability to the Internet Number Community….</span></font><a name="14c9640d14c802fb__TOC31559"><font color="#0b0b0b" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0b0b0b">
</span></font></a><font color="#5b9bd5" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f4e79"><font color="black"><span style="color:windowtext">It
is expected that the RIRs, as the contractual party of this agreement, will draft the specific language of this agreement.</span></font></span></font><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">”<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">New. Contract. Therefore it would not be difficult at all for the RIRs to develop this new contract in a way that
named PTI, rather than ICANN Inc., as the contractor. Since the proposed PTI is the same unit as the current ICANN IANA department, and they are happy with that service, I see no reason why the RIRs would have a problem with this.
<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">--MM<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">1. ICANN retains the contracts with the RIRs and IETF, with a minor amendment allowing ICANN to offer the service, but have the service fulfilled
by its wholly-controlled affiliate (or wholly-owned subsidiary) PTI.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">2. ICANN enters into an "assignment and assumption" agreement whereby PTI takes over ICANN's position in the agreements.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">3, ICANN and the RIRs/IETF terminate the current agreements, and PTI enters into new agreements with the RIRs and IETF.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The first option fits the principle of "change as little as possible (and explain any change you make".<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The second option fits the principle of "make PTI as easily separable from ICANN as possible."<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The third option fits the principle of "let's make everything messy and complicated."<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span></font><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Greg</span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span></font><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Hi,<br>
<br>
One of my comment for the Sidley report is this assumption that the contracts would move to IANA.<br>
<br>
I see no reason for this to happen unless the IETF/IAB & RIRs/CRISP want them to. It seems to me that the contracts could remain with ICANN and that ICANN would use the affiliate to do the work.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">On 07-Apr-15 15:29, Andrew Sullivan wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Hi,<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 11:04:14AM +0200, Lise Fuhr wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Please see the attached initial discussion draft of the two models from our legal counsel.<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Thanks for this. I've read it. I have some questions. Questions for<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Sidley are listed, and then some observations for our own discussion<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">(which needn't take up Sidley's time) follow when appropriate in<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">square brackets.<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">In I.A, particularly in numbers 4 and 6, I can't tell whether the<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">assumption is that there are new agreements between PTI and the RIRs,<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">and PTI and IETF. I think the fact that PTI is a new legal entity<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">means that new agreements would be required. Is that correct? [The<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">reason I ask this is because there is a possible risk of things coming<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">apart if the other operational communities need to be engaged in a new<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">negotiation. If PTI just takes the existing agreements and does a<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">global search and replace for ICANN with PTI, that's nice, but it<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">doesn't solve everything. For instance, the IETF would have to<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">publish a new version of RFC 2860. It's worth remembering that every<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">grievance everyone has with an existing document comes into play once<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">the document is opened for editing.]<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">By way of comparison, in II.B, does using Functional Separation permit<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">ICANN to continue working under its existing MoUs? I'd assume yes,<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">because AFAIK none of the existing agreements specify the internal<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">arrangements of how ICANN delivers the service. [Notwithstanding<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Milton's point about getting it "right", given the timeline there is a<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">significant advantage to not having to negotiate, I think, no?]<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">III.C talks about CSC. In the case of a full legal separation with<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">independent governance, would the CSC be needed at all? Presumably<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">the arrangements between PRI and their customers would be a<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">contractual one, and as such the management of such contractual<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">disputes ought to be via those contracts, and not through an extra<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">body. Or is the point that the way such a contractual arrangement<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">would solve such disputes ought to be along the lines of the CSC?<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">In III.D.2 there is a question about "ultimate accountability over<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">ICANN's stewardhip". I'm not entirely sure which cases this applies<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">to. If there is a legal separation, how is this question relevant for<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">CWG? Under the legal separation described, PTI becomes the new IANA<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">functions operator. If there's full independent governance of PTI,<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">for instance, isn't ICANN's stewardship completely gone -- it has only<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">responsibility for policy, and not for IANA operation at all, right?<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Is that part of the point of this question?<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">On III.I, I'm not sure what the difference is between CSC and IRP.<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Why are both things needed? <u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">A<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
<hr size="2" width="99%" noshade style="color:#909090" align="center">
</span></font></div>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><a href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank"><span style="border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="100" height="100" src="cid:~WRD000.jpg" alt="Image removed by sender. Avast logo"></span></a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><font size="3" color="#3d4d5a" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3d4d5a">This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br>
<a href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a> <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>