[CWG-Stewardship] "let the transition function" (was Re: [client com] CWG Comment Letter - PTI Bylaws)

[Glen de Saint Géry]

Dear All,

This is no problem Johann toon us around afterwards took beem-
Heaps of love Max dear
Misivkha

glen


Kind regards,

Glen de Saint Géry
Manager Supporting Organisations Advisory Committees
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers - ICANN
glen at icann.org
http://www.icann.org


-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: mardi 9 août 2016 23:35
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] "let the transition function" (was Re: [client com] CWG Comment Letter - PTI Bylaws)

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 07:01:47PM +0200, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:

> I suggest that it would be prudent to let the Transition function, as proposed and approved, for 12 to 18 months before going any further.

For the most part, I will take no position (which does not entail disagreement, please note) on most of the positions in your mail, but I don't actually understand the above sentence in relation to the current thread.

In order to have the transition, PTI needs to be working and to be an independent organization.  So it needs a board.  This was a requirement of the ICG proposal.

In order to have the transition, the IPR needs to go to some organization other than ICANN.  That was also a requirement of the ICG proposal.

So what would it meant to "let the Transition function" without these preconditions being met?

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship