<html>
<body>
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 class=cite 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">
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Christopher
Wilkinson
<<a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu">
lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>><br>
Date: Saturday 23 April 2016 at 20:46<br>
To: Seun Ojedeji
<<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>
><br>
Cc:
"<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">
cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">
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">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite 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">
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">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>