<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
On 19 Apr 2015 20:19, "Milton L Mueller" <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
....And the contract between the RIRs and ICANN or PTI hasn’t been written yet, so it could easily designate PTI as the counterparty. No one from the numbers community has expressed any concern about that, and having been in contact with several people in that community I suspect that, as with protocols, some might prefer that.<br>
><br>
SO: I happen to be involved in the numbers community and I am not sure I have seen any formal discussion about what you say above Milton. I think it's important we base our actions on transparently provided facts. Sometime ago the chair of CRISP formerly wrote the CWG asking that they be informed of any part of the names proposal that could affect them. Noting from the CWG has been sent in that regard so I think it's a little out of line to make assumption on what a whole community wants.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
> <br>
><br>
><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
><br>
</p>