<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Martin,</div><div>Tks for explanation</div><div>The first part of the message " In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI " is not clearly mentioned in CWG where as it was especifically mentioned in Legal Memo dated 04 April as I did cite in previous message .</div><div>For the rest I have the same understanding as your</div><div> Consequently, the part that ICANN WILL PERFORM THE CURRENT ROLE OF NTIA needs to be mentioned at the beginning of the CSC paragraph e.g. </div><div>While ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI \u2013 where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division in ICANNm, CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the contract.</div><div>This paraphrasing is necessary to avoid misinterpreting the Roles of icann AND THE rOLE of CSC.</div><div>It is always good to talk with Professional that nicely, quietly and respectfully provide the clarification.</div><div>Aggressive Approach does not work at least with me.</div><div>I have never ever yeilded to any pressure at all and will not do it</div><div>Tks again it was a kind and helpful clarification.</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss . </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-04-22 19:01 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk" target="_blank">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-GB" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Kavouss,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There seems to me that there was some confusion between us on the role of the NTIA and how the names proposal would address this.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The NTIA has a number of roles \u2013 identified in the document which went to consultation in December. I\u2019m sorry if I did not make clear that I was looking at NTIA\u2019s role in letting the contract and its ability to terminate and re-tender.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One key part of the CWG\u2019s discussion has been focussed on separability \u2013 a role that NTIA currently has by virtue of its contract with ICANN for the role of IANA functions operator. The contract approach allows the role to be reassigned
in the case of the IANA functions operator failing to meet obligations and failing to remedy the failings.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the model in front of us today, at transition ICANN would take the NTIA responsibility for a contract with its affiliate (subsidiary) the PTI \u2013 where PTI is the contractor currently providing the IANA functions operator, the IANA division
in ICANN. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The role of the CSC is to carry out the operational responsibilities associated with managing the contract. Its role is quite limited in that it monitors performance against the agreed service level targets and works with PTI to ensure
that concerns are addressed. The CSC does not make the decision on the future of the contract.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For other roles of the NTIA, we recommend:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">\u2022 Discontinuing the third party authorisation of changes to the registries;<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">\u2022 Further work on dealing with appeals on changes to the registries;<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">\u2022 Using the CSC and PRF to process changes to service level agreements and other operational conditions; and
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">\u2022 Using the CSC (and/or the PRF) to initiate discussion on structural or operational changes (the introduction of DNSSEC was the example I used) but leave open for the moment who might authorise change.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(I might have missed something, so do not treat this as a definitive list. There\u2019s also a lot of detail I have not covered.)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, all of these would come back to ICANN to implement or cause to be implemented.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hope this helps<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><u></u><u></u></font></span></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Martin<u></u><u></u></p>
</font></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>