Dear Milton:

Nice try, but No. 

CW

PS:  I fail to see the interest of the NCUC community in separating the gTLD interest in IANA from the rest of the ICANN community.
As you may recall, I remain concerned as to the risks to the Internet arising from an eventual capture of IANA/PTI by Registrars and Registries, and the disproportionate influence of new gTLDs and their owners in a few jurisdictions, whereas the underlying mandate of the IANA transition is to respect the global multistakeholder interests of the Internet community as a whole.


On 04 May 2015, at 16:38, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] 

I am fine with this.  I see no problem at all that it is handled differently for gTLDs and ccTLDs.  Also, if the ccTLD registries are fine with this, that is what matters.
 
My only suggestion is that we are clear in communicating the difference in the IFO functions with regard to ccTLDs and gTLDs in cases where it is relevant.
 
MM: Repeating a question buried in my longer message from yesterday: would it be advisable for the ccTLDs to negotiate their own SLA with the PTI? Does this address the potential for the IANA contracts/SLAs not responding to the distinct needs of both communities?