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
Cc: 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).