Hi,

On 27-Apr-15 09:47, David Post wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

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


Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com