Aug. 6, 2015
3:01 p.m.
Hi, On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:55:19PM +0000, James Gannon wrote:
Under the CWG proposal the PTI will be the IFO and ICANN will be the IANA steward.
I think this misses a nuance. The above is not true from the POV of the non-names communities. Under the CWG proposal, both the IETF and RIRs will conclude (or maintain) their agreement with ICANN, not PTI. The stewardship of their respective functions is _already_ underaken by those communities. This is the point the IETF at least has been making all along -- from long before NTIA kicked this off. So the distinction from (say) the numbers community between "ICANN" and "PTI" is inoperative. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com