<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27-Apr-15 09:47, David Post wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:553e8b0e.cf5c8c0a.40fa.6ca8@mx.google.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><font color="#330033"><br>
I certainly favor making sure it is possible for them to be as
involved
in the PTI as they may decide they are willing to be. One of
the
ideas that was dead on arrival was the notion that instead of
the
Affiliate being their sole property of ICANN, it would be a
shared
resource among the 3 operational communities. That remains
possible
as an evolutionary path in the current proposal.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Why was that dead on arrival? What's the objection to having the
3
communities, rather than the ICANN board, in control of the PTI
Board?</blockquote>
<br>
A two part issue:<br>
<br>
- it presumed to offer a solution that included the other
communities, something we are not permitted to do by the ICG rules<br>
<br>
- and the first reactions of these other communities indicated they
did not wish to be bundled into a Naming proposal.<br>
<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="http://www.avast.com/">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br><a href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>