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