Hi,

On this issue the ICANN names solution should presume that ICANN remain the service contractor with the other operational communities in any model.  It is only if these other operational communities  initiate a request for a change to a direct service contract with IANA that it becomes an issue.  As far as I know they have neither done so, nor desire to do so.

I do not see an ambiguity in this.  While there may be an opportunity for them to think about it, there is no requirement or implication that they do so.

avri

On 19-Apr-15 00:53, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Unstated in the above is that, depending on whether we have
fundamental bylaws or an affiliate, there are either one or two
options for other communities. ICANN can be indifferent to how to
proceed on this, but the other communities may need to make a
decision:

• Continue the agreement with ICANN, who then undertake to have PTI do
the work for those other communities. This is the only option
available if PTI is a department of ICANN under some fundamental
bylaw(s), but it remains available in case PTI is an affiliate.



Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com