<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 5:24 AM, Milton L Mueller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="14d413801c93105c__MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><span class="">
<p>> <br>
> The numbers people also want a separable, contractual relationship. Tell me why names is different.<br>
><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span><p>I believe you know the major difference between numbers and names which is the policy source; ICANN is the policy source for names while it is not for numbers.
<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Not quite correct, Seun.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">ICANN is BOTH the policy source for names AND the maintainer of the IANA registry for names. So you are ducking the question:</span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div>No i am not, you asked for differences NOT similarities and just for the record, ICANN is NOT currently IANA maintainer for names, VeriSign is. ICANN is however the IANA manager for both names and numbers (including being maintainer for numbers)<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> why shouldn’t names have the same structural separation
between the policy maker and the IANA implementer? And if it does, why can’t the policy maker choose the IANA operator?
</span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div>I am not sure any part of my statement implied what you have stated above. <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p>One may argue that it will be in the interest of names(especially the Gs) that ICANN continue to stand.<br>
For numbers and protocol it will make a lot of sense to move it's database from ICANN (when required) because it's policy development process is independent of ICANN. Same cannot be said for names(excluding ccTLD) and maybe that is why some don't see much sense
in the proposed contractual arrangements for names.<u></u><u></u></p>
</span><p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">The same can be said for names and is being said for names. Seun, let me make something clear to you and all other ALAC people who have tried to stop separability (interesting
to know why but that is another issue). <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">If you don’t accept legal separation of PTI and continue to push for an ICANN monopoly on IANA, there will be no consensus on this latest proposal and the transition will probably
fail. I can guarantee you that there will never be consensus on a purely internal solution.</span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>With due respect Milton, I am quite amazed at your statement above as i have not said ALAC is stopping anything. Please remember that i am also a member of the CWG and have been following the process quite keenly (to the best of my ability). The proposal we currently have was presented to the community on behalf of the entire CWG and its only the community's view that would ultimately determine next steps for the CWG proposal. Neither of us can stop anything if there is consensus from majority of the community towards a certain solution. <br><br></div><div>Again for clarity i am only responding on this mailing list as an individual member of the NCSG and noting more!<br></div><br></div>Regards<br clear="all"></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><font color="#888888"><blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;font-family:garamond,serif">
<i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Seun Ojedeji,<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Federal University Oye-Ekiti<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">web: </span><a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a><br>
<span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Mobile: <a value="+2348035233535">+2348035233535</a></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><br></i><i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453" target="_blank"> </a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a></span></i><br><br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The key to understanding is humility - my view !<br></blockquote></blockquote></font><br></div></div>
</div></div>