[CWG-Stewardship] FW: ICANN-PTI Services Agreement

[Jonathan Robinson]

>From Chris Disspain

 

--


Begin forwarded message:

From: Chris Disspain <chris at disspain.uk <mailto:chris at disspain.uk> >
Date: 23 August 2016 at 06:18:35 BST
To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk <mailto:paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk> >
Cc: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org <mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org> >, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> " <cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> >, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN-PTI Services Agreement

Hi Paul,

 

Bottom line is the vast majority ccTLDs do not want to appoint ICANN in charge
of their enteries in the ROOT zone - (some ccTLDs - around 10 have agreements
with ICANN which does outline the relationship - such as .AU) but the 240+
others don't!"

Where has this been respected/recognised please?

 

 

The changes drafts of the agreement and annex reflect, I think, the input from the ccTLDs and correct the language in the first draft around the status of the FoI and GAC principles. There may be some more tinkering to do on those points but any issues will doubtless be raised in the public comment.

 

Your point appears to be a different one that is nothing to do with the PTI but is, rather, seeking to insert statements of principle at this extremely late stage. Or if I'm wrong and your point is relevant to the PTI then surely this is something that should be raised by you and other ccTLDs in the public comment isn't it? 

 

Or have I misunderstood? 

 

Cheers,

 

Chris


On 22 Aug 2016, at 15:16, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk <mailto:paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk> > wrote:

Thanks Trang

I have been asking members of the ccTLD community for their guidance on the
draft Agreement and to make sure they are satisfied with Annex C being
incorporated. (I have yet to read the latest draft).

Also the CWG asked that I seek clarification as to what was meant by the opening
remarks in Section 1.

The comments I received by email were:


"Bottom line is the vast majority ccTLDs do not want to appoint ICANN in charge
of their enteries in the ROOT zone - (some ccTLDs - around 10 have agreements
with ICANN which does outline the relationship - such as .AU) but the 240+
others don't!"

Where has this been respected/recognised please?

I have subsequently been asked (as the original person advocating) by a
different ccTLD Rep for a status report regarding the promised end-to-end
automation for an updates to the Root Zone... 

I have said that this is not part of the transition and may occur later, but I'd
welcome ICANN/IANA's response just to accurately convey the message to the ccTLD
Community.

Thanks 

Paul



Quoting Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org <mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org> >:




All,

 

Please see attached a draft of the ICANN-PTI services agreement.

 

Best,

 

Trang

 

 






_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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/20160823/f64d5fb6/attachment.html>