<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Good catch, Seun.<div><br></div><div>There is no doubt in my mind that PTI was defined as the successor to <u>all</u> the IANA functions.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div><br></div><div>CW</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 23 Apr 2016, at 21:27, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><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">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>
_______________________________________________<br>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>