There are a numerous options as to how the numbers and protocols communities might contract for the IANA services that the CWG is recommending reside in a legally separated PTI. At this stage, it would be presumptuous to know how those communities might do that. We should simply let them respond on the record in public comment. <http://internetgovernance.org> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

On this issue the ICANN names solution should presume that ICANN remain the service contractor with the other operational communities in any model. It is only if these other operational communities initiate a request for a change to a direct service contract with IANA that it becomes an issue. As far as I know they have neither done so, nor desire to do so.

I do not see an ambiguity in this. While there may be an opportunity for them to think about it, there is no requirement or implication that they do so.

avri

On 19-Apr-15 00:53, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

Unstated in the above is that, depending on whether we have fundamental bylaws or an affiliate, there are either one or two options for other communities. ICANN can be indifferent to how to proceed on this, but the other communities may need to make a decision:

• Continue the agreement with ICANN, who then undertake to have PTI do the work for those other communities. This is the only option available if PTI is a department of ICANN under some fundamental bylaw(s), but it remains available in case PTI is an affiliate.

------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com