<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Good evening:<div><br></div><div>Thankyou Olivier. I would not cringe.</div><div><br></div><div>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The CWG draft report is in public consultation. May I suggest that the public outside CWG might be rather confused to find that aspects of the agreed draft were still under discussion at this stage.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>How about a<i> 'trève'</i> until the public consultation is concluded? All interested parties may contribute to the public consultation meanwhile.</div><div><br></div><div>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The global multistakeholder model means what it says. It is absolutely essential that existing and prospective entities respect that principle.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Internet users and governments are major stakeholders in all aspects of IANA and ICANN, in addition to the operational communities.</div><div><br></div><div>3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Chuck: Although I value your personal commitment and contributions, I think you should take advice from Verisign's corporate lawyers on the anti-trust aspects of this affair.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>From my perspective it is quite unusual for the dominant operator and principal (remaining) contractor to play such a leading role in designing the future regulatory system.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div><br></div><div>CW</div><div><br></div><div>PS:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Regarding the CWG relations with IANA and the RIRs, please see the comments from RIPE and Brian Carpenter.</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 18 May 2015, at 16:43, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">ocl@gih.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Chuck,<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/05/2015 14:29, Gomes, Chuck
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495CAC8F@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com" type="cite"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
did not say that IFRT should be largely composed of ccTLD and
gTLD registries. I simply said that the IFRT composition should
have stronger participation of ccTLD and gTLD registries than is
proposed currently. If the IFRT is doing a separation review,
it is more important than ever for there to be strong direct
customer participation. I fully agree that IFRT must be M-S.</span></blockquote>
<br>
I cringe at this. If the decision for separation is to be decided by
the IRFT then it will need to be accepted by all SOs & ACs &
the group needs to be multistakeholder.<br>
The CSC is already Registry-led, and quite rightly so. Separation
does not solely affect direct customers. It is such a large step, it
affects everyone.<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>