[CWG-Stewardship] architectural changes to the root system

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 04:30:55PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
> This raises the issue of separation -- if we involve the PTI Board in
> policy, isn't that the wrong side of the line?  Shouldn't policy be dealt
> with on the ICANN side of the divide?  (Also, we are requiring more of a
> working board, and less of a minimalist board by going down this road.)

I agree with this.  The PTI board, and for that matter the PTI, does
what it's told unless that "what it's told" runs contrary to what IANA
ought to be doing.  For names that might be slightly different than
for other types of registries, but certainly instructions (1) that it
can't understand or (2) that are inconsistent with other parts of the
system or (3) that do not conform to the technical criteria for the
DNS or (4) that are inconsistent with the overarching policy would
have to wait until resolution of the condition.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com