Hi Milton, I agree with the RySG approach too of earmarking fees regardless of who the IFO is. The DT-N comment simply was that this matter needs to be handled within the CWG’s work, without speaking to how. I am not sure that DT-N/X/SR is the right place which is why I deferred to the CWG or potentially a different DT in the comment. Stephanie Stephanie Duchesneau Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Friday, May 29, 2015 at 10:15 AM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>, "Duchesneau, Stephanie" <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us<mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Cc: "avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Subject: RE: Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas I am not Stephanie as you know, but I think you got it right Milton. Chuck From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:08 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Duchesneau, Stephanie; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Subject: RE: Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas I find the statement about “Separation Costs” below to be very strange. If there is a separation process and it results in separation, PTI is “fired” and no one covers its expenses. It goes out of business. ICANN contracts with someone else. For that reason, I agree in principle with RySG concept of earmarked or set-side funds for the IFO regardless of who it is. Stephanie, is there something about this statement I did not understand correctly? Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).