[Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal for RIRs/IETF

Mary Uduma mnuduma at yahoo.com
Sun Apr 26 14:56:31 UTC 2015

Dear All,
Thank you Alissa and those that have commented on this thread. I support the direction of the Chair as a proactive move.  
I also agree with Patrik's proposition.
However, I have the following questions for ICG  members in the  Protocol Parameters and the Number Communities regarding the Naming proposal on IANA function operator in the post transition.
Has ICANN Liaisons to any of the two OCs, the MOUs  not withstanding? 

Can the two OCs  be willing to part-own the PTI instead of it being wholly owned by ICANN and other OCs just having a liaison to its Board? Though not yet concluded.
Are there any legal, statutory or jurisdictional restrictions for doing so?

Mary Uduma



  On Saturday, April 25, 2015 2:53 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

 On 25 Apr 2015, at 15:38, Jon Nevett wrote:

> I don't support the addition in which we suggest a different jurisdiction.


Once again, we as ICG should not and can not propose any specific solution or changes. If ICG members or their organizations do have specific views, by all means do submit such things via whatever mechanism the OC have suggested.

  Best, Patrik
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150426/baf11a9c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150426/baf11a9c/attachment.asc>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list