Let me build on some of the questions Andrew asked. A later message will add a few questions of my own.

> In I.A, particularly in numbers 4 and 6, I can't tell whether the
> assumption is that there are new agreements between PTI and the
> RIRs, and PTI and IETF.  I think the fact that PTI is a new legal entity
> means that new agreements would be required.  Is that correct?

I think that's not necessarily correct, but agree that this is a question worth resolving. If the PTI is an affiliate of ICANN and is created by means of a transfer of the assets of the existing IANA department to the PTI affiliate, why couldn't ICANN's IANA department's existing contracts go along with it? Corporations with contracts change ownership all the time, and divest entities all the time; I suspect that this does not require them to re-negotiate every contract they have. But let's let the lawyers answer that.

> reason I ask this is because there is a possible risk of things coming
> apart if the other operational communities need to be engaged in a
> new negotiation.  If PTI just takes the existing agreements and does a
> global search and replace for ICANN with PTI, that's nice, but it doesn't
> solve everything.  For instance, the IETF would have to publish a new
> version of RFC 2860.

I would note that the CRISP proposal requires a new MoU or contract anyway, so I don't see any inconveniences there. So we are really only talking about protocols community.

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship