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

[Greg Shatan]

Milton,

Why do you say "IANA as a concept now belongs to the IETF"?  When and how
do you believe this happened?

Greg

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <
lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151216/e6684d75/attachment-0001.html>