Yes this was a misunderstanding that was taken by ICANN staff in their interpretation at the time and lucky has been resolved now. From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday 24 April 2016 at 00:12 To: "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez@icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org>> Cc: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Clarification on PTI scope Thanks for your response Xavier, just so this is not mixed up unnecessarily as the wording of your response seems not to answer my question(it even seem to be authenticating my concern); the CWG even in February did not propose what was reflected in the budget published on the 5th neither does the conversion happened post-ICANN55.