[CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.

[Greg Shatan]

It's not quite as black and white as that.  The RFP does suggest some level
of communication (though not necessarily coordination) between the
different communities, which we should probably consider.  While we are not
supposed to be designing a holistic solution, this is not some sort of
"locked room" exercise either.

Greg

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
> On 28-Nov-14 19:36, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Is the option of having separate complementary contracts by the different users of the IANA functions off the table?
>
> MM: By “different users of the IANA functions” do you mean the names, protocols and numbers users? If so I would admonish you again to stick to the knitting of this group, which is focused on names. We are not holistically redesigning the IANA arrangements we are focused on the names part exclusively.
>
>
> In fact the ICG has done its best to make sure we don't have complementary
> solutions as the first decision they made on how the process and hence
> solution should be designed.
>
> It is a coordinators' decision that seems to have been made that most all
> have just accepted.
>
> avri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>


-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*666 Third Avenue **ï** New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> *

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141129/5188d182/attachment-0001.html>