[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] CWG Comment Letter to CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal

[Christopher Wilkinson]

Well, Milton: That 'structure' has become so complex, as you describe it, that I think it is unsaleable to the global community. 
As has been observed more than once, at an earlier stage in this matter, PTI is unnecessary in the absence of separation, which many of us do not anticipate under any circumstances.

CW



On 17 Dec 2015, at 00:29, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> But that is precisely my point, Christopher. PTI is not the IANA, nor is ICANN. PTI is the IANA functions operator; each OC decides who their IFO is. IANA as a concept now belongs to the IETF, and we are removing ownership of the IANA trademarks and domains from ICANN, and from any particular IFO, including PTI.
>  
> One reason I am insisting on label accuracy is that there are people who still don’t understand the nature of the structural reform we are enacting. Accurate labeling helps to convey the change.
>  
> --MM
>  
> From: Christopher Wilkinson [mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu] 
> 
> IANA has been maintained as a label for more than a decade, the creation of ICANN notwithstanding.
>  
> The IANA label will no doubt survive long-time, PTI notwithstanding. IANA is more important in the public mind.
>  
> CW
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151217/8ee3072b/attachment.html>