Public Comments on IANA proposal

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

On 27-Apr-15 09:47, David Post wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> 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?

A two part issue:

-  it presumed to offer a solution that included the other communities,
something we are not permitted to do by the ICG rules

- and the  first reactions of these other communities indicated they did
not wish to be bundled into a Naming proposal.


avri


avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150427/403a2a48/attachment.htm>