<p dir="ltr">I believe so, with minor edit; It's the naming community as structured within the IFRT and the SCWG. Secondly, only the IANA functions relating to names would be applicable(although I expect that other OCs would have moved their functions long before names is done moving theirs) and lastly, it's the needs as defined in the ICANN/PTI SLE.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quot<blockquote class=" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear All<br>
<br>
Firstly, let me say in the past with NTIA's stewardship (including the IANA<br>
contract rebid) the ICANN/IANA have done an excellent job at serving the naming<br>
community.<br>
<br>
However, I would like clarification on the CWG's desired mechanics of the<br>
independence of the IANA Functions Operator from or being "impacted" by ICANN<br>
Corporate interests.<br>
<br>
My understanding was that the PTI was "separate" from ICANN (yet<br>
internal to ICANN).<br>
My understanding was that there was a pre-determined escalation path to<br>
resolve disputes between IANA operator and its customers<br>
My understanding was that in the event of a failure by ICANN/PTI to meet the<br>
needs of the Registry naming community - the IANA functions would be stripped<br>
out.... (in a controlled pre-determined manner).<br>
<br>
Can I be reassured that my assumptions are correct ???<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Paul<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</div>