From Chris Disspain
-- Begin forwarded message: From: Chris Disspain <chris@disspain.uk <mailto:chris@disspain.uk> > Date: 23 August 2016 at 06:18:35 BST To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk <mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> > Cc: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org <mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org> >, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> " <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN-PTI Services Agreement Hi Paul, Bottom line is the vast majority ccTLDs do not want to appoint ICANN in charge of their enteries in the ROOT zone - (some ccTLDs - around 10 have agreements with ICANN which does outline the relationship - such as .AU) but the 240+ others don't!" Where has this been respected/recognised please? The changes drafts of the agreement and annex reflect, I think, the input from the ccTLDs and correct the language in the first draft around the status of the FoI and GAC principles. There may be some more tinkering to do on those points but any issues will doubtless be raised in the public comment. Your point appears to be a different one that is nothing to do with the PTI but is, rather, seeking to insert statements of principle at this extremely late stage. Or if I'm wrong and your point is relevant to the PTI then surely this is something that should be raised by you and other ccTLDs in the public comment isn't it? Or have I misunderstood? Cheers, Chris On 22 Aug 2016, at 15:16, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk <mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> > wrote: Thanks Trang I have been asking members of the ccTLD community for their guidance on the draft Agreement and to make sure they are satisfied with Annex C being incorporated. (I have yet to read the latest draft). Also the CWG asked that I seek clarification as to what was meant by the opening remarks in Section 1. The comments I received by email were: "Bottom line is the vast majority ccTLDs do not want to appoint ICANN in charge of their enteries in the ROOT zone - (some ccTLDs - around 10 have agreements with ICANN which does outline the relationship - such as .AU) but the 240+ others don't!" Where has this been respected/recognised please? I have subsequently been asked (as the original person advocating) by a different ccTLD Rep for a status report regarding the promised end-to-end automation for an updates to the Root Zone... I have said that this is not part of the transition and may occur later, but I'd welcome ICANN/IANA's response just to accurately convey the message to the ccTLD Community. Thanks Paul Quoting Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org <mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org> >: All, Please see attached a draft of the ICANN-PTI services agreement. Best, Trang _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship