[CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Fri Jun 5 03:16:32 UTC 2015
But what would the thresholds be? And, currently an SIFR comes as a
result of other mechanisms being exhausted as well as the IANA probems
resolution process.
/The Special IFR would be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of
the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for
determining supermajority. /
Would we require a supermajority of only the Board, or in addition to
the ccNSO and GNSO. And as a result of the mechanisms being exhausted?
I would assume so.
Matthew
On 6/5/2015 4:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> I can't
> --MM
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
>> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
>> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:02 PM
>> To: avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public
>> comments
>>
>> Good catch Avri and good question. Can anyone think of a reason why the
>> ICANN Board should not be able to request an SIFR?
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
>> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:39 PM
>> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public
>> comments
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am part of DT-M and partly responsible for this.
>>
>> But. It has a cost, which I did mention on the DT-M list:
>>
>> There is currently no mechanism defined for the Board to initiate a SIFR.
>>
>> Should there be?
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 04-Jun-15 16:10, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>> Here is DT-M's final proposed response to comment review tool item #
>>> 246 regarding AFRALO's suggestion that the PTI Board be allowed to
>>> initiate a SIFR directly: *"DT M carefully considered the
>>> recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a Special IFR but
>>> decided against that while at the same time noting that the PTI Board
>>> could request that the ICANN Board consider doing so."*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If there are any questions, please let me know.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>> "This message (including any attachments) is intended only
>>> for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
>>> addressed, and may contain information that is non-public,
>>> proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from
>>> disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
>>> attorney work product. If you are not the intended
>>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
>>> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
>>> communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
>>> this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete
>>> this message immediately."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150605/73fbd9ca/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list