[CWG-Stewardship] architectural changes to the root system

[Milton L Mueller]

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]


This raises the issue of separation -- if we involve the PTI Board in policy, isn't that the wrong side of the line?

It’s a good question, but my answer would be: No, not when the “policy” involves the processes and procedures for updating the root zone.

(Also, we are requiring more of a working board, and less of a minimalist board by going down this road.)

MM: Not sure I buy into the minimalist board concept when it comes to PTI. I don’t see the need for a big board, and I don’t see the need for a board that broadly represents gTLD policy stakeholders, but I see no reason why the board of PTI should not be ‘working’ on those things about the IANA functions that require supervision and decision making. The PTI board would be more specialized and focused than any other board in that respect. Better positioned to make a decision than ICANN board.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150422/143d3192/attachment-0001.html>