<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /></head><body>Xavier's message was in direct response to mine just below it and he was confirming what I said.<br>
<br>
Alan <br>
-- <br>
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On April 23, 2016 7:12:20 PM EDT, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<p dir="ltr">Thanks for your response Xavier, just so this is not mixed up unnecessarily as the wording of your response seems not to answer my question(it even seem to be authenticating my concern); the CWG even in February did not propose what was reflected in the budget published on the 5th neither does the conversion happened post-ICANN55.</p>
<p dir="ltr">However what I have gotten here(from others) is that it may indeed be a mistake and there is a common understanding of the status-quo, which is the most important.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I will leave it at that.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4<br />
Kindly excuse brevity and typos</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 23 Apr 2016 11:56 p.m., "Xavier J. Calvez" <<a href="mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org">xavier.calvez@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution" /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>All,</div>
<div>I confirm that what appears in the budget document under public comment since 5 March relative to PTI is a result of a proposal designed in the course of February, pre-ICANN55 and all the evolutive conversations that have been happening
since then.</div>
<div><br />
Thank you.
<div>Best,<br />
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Xavier</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br />
On Apr 23, 2016, at 14:37, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br />
<br />
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Correct. The budget document is dated 5 March and a lot has changed since then. There is no doubt that all three functions will be performed under the auspices of PTI.<br />
<br />
Alan<br />
<br />
At 23/04/2016 04:07 PM, James Gannon wrote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote type="cite">I think this is a leftover item from the initial ICANN staff drafting of PTI, which clarification that the IOTF made to the implementing ICANN staff on our first call and have resolved that as per the CWG proposal
PTI will be managing all 3 functions.<br />
<br />
-JG <br />
<br />
From: <<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Christopher Wilkinson <<a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" target="_blank"> lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>><br />
Date: Saturday 23 April 2016 at 20:46<br />
To: Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a> ><br />
Cc: "<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank"> cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank"> cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>><br />
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Clarification on PTI scope<br />
<br />
Good catch, Seun. <br />
<br />
There is no doubt in my mind that PTI was defined as the successor to <u>all</u> the IANA functions.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
<br />
CW<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
On 23 Apr 2016, at 21:27, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a> > wrote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote type="cite">Dear all,<br />
<br />
>From my understanding of PTI was that it's going to be the new IANA that will serve the 3OCs (even though numbers and protocols contracts with ICANN).<br />
<br />
If my high-level understanding above is right, then i think there may be something wrong in the fy17 draft budget which has just been brought to my attention.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-fy17-05mar16-en.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-fy17-05mar16-en.pdf</a>
<br />
<br />
Page 25 item 4 says the following:<br />
<br />
PTI- New legal entity, destined to host activities and costs of the IANA functions in service of
<br />
the *Names community*<br />
<br />
Then page 27 seem to imply that PTI will indeed serve the names alone. At the moment, I have not considered the application of this new arrangement and unless I am missing something, I don't think this was what was proposed.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
Sent from my LG G4<br />
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<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></blockquote>
<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></blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br />
<span>CWG-Stewardship mailing list</span><br />
<span><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a></span><br />
<span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></span><br />
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></body></html>