Russ While I am not eager to get involved in any discussion of IANA's business model, the idea that this falls outside of our remit is clearly not true. It is at least conceivable, if not probable, that ending NTIA's role will lead to organizational changes that might lead one or more of the parties involved, either a provider or user of IANA services, to consider changing the no charge method. A change in Verisign's role might also do so. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Russ Mundy These sound like they are items that are outside of the current contract (unless he's saying that a $0 contract means lack of charging). Although there may be other examples, I think these two things fall outside of the ICG remit since removing NTIA and the NTIA / ICANN contract would not have any relationship to these examples. RussM Alissa On Oct 12, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com<mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>> wrote: Alissa: I'm not sure that there are any orphan issues that directly impact the IANA registries. There are certainly issues that span more than one operational community. Can you explain what is meant here? Russ On Oct 12, 2014, at 10:25 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: The ALAC chair has shared a few placeholder questions with me for our Tuesday session and I wanted to pass them on: * How decisions are made? * How will proposals be consolidated? * How does the ICG suggest handling Orphan Issues that do not fit in one or another operational community proposal? * Proposals vs. Inputs -- will Inputs only be comments on the proposals? Can Inputs be any types of input? Will inputs from ICG members be considered on the same level as Proposals? * Emphasize that Accountability component is needed for all proposals coming to the ICG. Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg