<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">What are you cringing at Olivier? The separation review would be done by the IFRT with full community involvement. The IFRT would not be led or controlled
by registries; they would just have a significant role. I will say it again: the IFRT is M-S.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 18, 2015 10:44 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck; Seun Ojedeji<br>
<b>Cc:</b> avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Dear Chuck,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 18/05/2015 14:29, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>