Hi,

But in all seriousness, it they did try that.  the Iana Function Review
could be brought together and could (according to process tbd) decide to
move Names support to another IANA Function operator.  and depending on
whether they hold out for the contract they want, so could Numbers and
Protocols.

So any such sale would be impossible without the buy-in of the larger
community.

I think that is sort of what the stress test team might say.  but as a
member of the CCWG stress team I can certainly bring the test up in the
team..  Next email ...

avri

On 04-May-15 23:32, Carlos Raúl G. wrote:
> Stress test #xxxx
>
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> +506 8837 7176 (New Number)
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>
> El may 4, 2015, a las 21:30, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> escribió:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Only if ICANN decided to sell it to them.
>> How likely is that?
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 04-May-15 23:06, Joly MacFie wrote:
>>> On the At-Large Stewardship call last week Christopher Wilkinson
>>> asked pointed questions about separability opening the possibility
>>> of a future PTI capture by billion dollar corporation(s), thereby
>>> ultimately escaping multistakeholder oversight i.e. ICANN. Could
>>> this be a root concern?
>>>
>>> j
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
>>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>>>  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>>>  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> 	
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>
>>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com