[CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3

[Gomes, Chuck]

Andrew's questions/suggestion seem very good to me.  With regard to the GNSO though, to date it hasn't really dealt with policy regarding the root.  I think that may need to change going forward, not only for issues like this one but also to allow it to serve as an escalation body for the CSC as currently proposed.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 6:55 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 02:16:23AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
> This issue (who makes decisions about or approves "architectural 
> changes to the root system" in the absence of the NTIA) bears further 
> review.  The CSC doesn't seem like the right place at all.  The PTI 
> Board makes some sense, but only if we are not keeping it minimalist.  
> Could the NTIA role simply disappear (as we propose to happen with the 
> authorization/validation function)?

Why isn't this the names community within ICANN?  That's where the policy resides, I thought?

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship