Hi Nigel, Sorry you did not find these informations useful. I am of course totally unable to answer the questions you raise, since they should be answered by Icann representatives. So if you want to proceed, I suggest you raise these questions with Icann officials, maybe through our ccNSO representatives in the Board ? best Mathieu Le 06/05/2015 10:47, Nigel Roberts a écrit :

Dear Mathieu

If those statements you rely on -- and particularly, the two from ICANN -- are made in response to the assertion that

"ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity."

then I think they are unhelpful, and to me appear quite evasive.

If they were /not/ made in response to that quote, they appear rambling and irrelevant.

It's a simple question.

Did, or did not ICANN (or their lawyers) ever make this representation to the people who say they did. (Yes or No?)

If they did say this, does this actuallly represent the position of the ICANN Staff and ICANN Board in the negotiation? (Yes or No?)

If they did not say this, will ICANN agree that their position on this extremely important was (accidentally or otherwise) substantially and fundamentally misrepresented by the author of that quote, how did that come about, and should we therefore be expecting a retraction from the people who made the above quote? (Yes or No?)

Finally, if the answer to both those questions is 'yes', would you agree that we are wasting our time? (Yes or No?)

On 06/05/15 06:49, Mathieu Weill wrote:> Hi Nigel,

...

Here are a few additional references for statements about this discussion, which I hope will help everyone make their own opinion.

IETF statement regarding their negotiations with Icann : http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html

Clarification email from Bruce Tonkin, in his capacity as CCWG Board liaison on May 1st (attached)

Clarification email from Theresa Swineheart (Icann staff) on May 1st (attached)

I hope this helps.

Best Mathieu

Le 05/05/2015 18:45, Nigel Roberts a écrit :

...

On 05/05/15 17:23, Mathieu Weill wrote:

...

Dear Nigel,

I too respect this source. However ICANN staff as well as others have since then provided some clarifications. The statement below does not, apparently, capture ICANN's position. We may not be wasting our time, after all.

Thank for for this update.

I understand from you above reply that the statement I quoted earlier (which, apparently, you also know whence it came) is untrue.

It is unfortunate that such a definitive statement came to be stated as fact -- when it was not -- in the forum that it was so stated, don't you agree?

Do you think we might be able to have sight of the actual clarifications by the staff concerned, debunking this ,yth, as well as knowing who the 'others' to whom you refer as also providing clarifications.

It is, of course perfectly possible for staff in one part of an organisation to make one statement, while the Board and c-suite staff pursue another strategy ... ... so the position and identity of those clarifying this are important!

And the lack of detail or attribution for the clarifications you, yourself, have had the benefit of, but we have not, is a defect that I hope may soon be remedied.

Thanks again for your assistance.

_______________________________________________ Cctldworld mailing list Cctldworld@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld

-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************