[CWG-Stewardship] Appropriate Stewardship safeguards.....

[Mueller, Milton L]

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> My understanding was that the PTI was "separate" from ICANN (yet internal to
> ICANN).

It is not internal, it is a separate subsidiary. While majority controlled by ICANN, it is a separate entity. 

> My understanding was that there was a pre-determined escalation path to
> resolve disputes between IANA operator and its customers My understanding
> was that in the event of a failure by ICANN/PTI to meet the needs of the
> Registry naming community - the IANA functions would be stripped out.... (in a
> controlled pre-determined manner).
> 
> Can I be reassured that my assumptions are correct ???

Your assumptions about our objectives are correct. Seun's reminder that this applies only to the naming functions (numbers and protocols would be "stripped out" by their own respective communities) is correct. 

However, the enforcement mechanisms for ensuring that the names community can actually require ICANN to cough up IANA are not settled yet. That is the task of the CCWG, and we are awaiting its results. 
There will be a public comment period on its new plan, so please review it carefully and let us know whether you, from your unique perspective as a ccTLD operator, believe that the procedures and enforcement mechanisms are good enough.

--MM


> 
> Thanks
> 
> Best
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship