[CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Hello all,

without looking at what is happening in the other silos we risk ending
up with the ICG needing to do the job of harmonising/reconciliating the
proposals. That is much more than just editorial changes and might
involve amendments to the proposal itself. Is this CWG happy with this?
Kind regards,

Olivier

On 29/11/2014 04:13, Avri Doria 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141129/fa446a60/attachment.html>