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

Sun Apr 26 15:27:00 UTC 2015

Thank you Jon, Patrik, Martin and Mary: point taken.
Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.

----- Mail original -----
De: "Mary Uduma" <mnuduma at yahoo.com>
À: "Patrik Fältström" <paf at frobbit.se>, "Jon Nevett" <jon at donuts.co>, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Dimanche 26 Avril 2015 16:56:31
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Overlaps/implications of CWG proposal	for	RIRs/IETF

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. 

Agree. 

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 
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org 

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org