Hi, If there is the understanding of the 2 points below: - That there is supposed to be another process that handles the relationship between NTIA & the root zone maintainer (which is not within the scope of CWG) - That the relationship between NTIA & IANA is what the CWG is supposed to look into transitioning (which is what most DTs is expected to address) Then I don't think there would be need for DT-F I hope we are not fragmenting these DTs beyond defragmentation. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Mar 2015 17:20, "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
On our last call, on Thursday, we noted an action to make a call for a DT-F lead. This DT is listed as a Priority 1 DT, so we would like to identify a lead and a working group as soon as possible.
As a reminder, here is an excerpt about DT-F from the Status document on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams+List
Design Team F <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams+List#F>
Relationship between the NTIA, IANA and the Root Zone Maintainer
Lead
TBC
Status
Step 0, Priority 1 (Provisional)
Note
Best, Grace
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship