<p dir="ltr">Putting Xavier in copy, hopefully he could provide a quick clarification as well.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 23 Apr 2016 20:27, "Seun Ojedeji" <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Dear all,</p>
<p dir="ltr">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).</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><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></p>
<p dir="ltr">Page 25 item 4 says the following:</p>
<p dir="ltr">PTI- New legal entity, destined to host activities and costs of the IANA functions in service of
<br>
the *Names community*</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos</p>
</blockquote></div>