Seun,

Please try to be accurate. I haven’t made any assertions about what “a whole community wants”

I did say I have talked to people in RIRs who might prefer a legally separated IANA.

In fact, your comments are supporting my point that RIRs have not made any formal statements either way.

And as noted countless times before, because the RIRs have yet to write their contract, it shouldn’t make any difference to them whether their future contract is with IANA services provided by a department of ICANN or by an affiliate.

--MM

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 4:24 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: avri; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Apr 2015 20:19, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
....And the contract between the RIRs and ICANN or PTI hasn’t been written yet, so it could easily designate PTI as the counterparty. No one from the numbers community has expressed any concern about that, and having been in contact with several people in that community I suspect that, as with protocols, some might prefer that.
>
SO: I happen to be involved in the numbers community and I am not sure I have seen any formal discussion about what you say above Milton. I think it's important we base our actions on transparently provided facts. Sometime ago the chair of CRISP formerly wrote the CWG asking that they be informed of any part of the names proposal that could affect them. Noting from the CWG has been sent in that regard so I think it's a little out of line to make assumption on what a whole community wants.

Regards
>  
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>