[CWG-Stewardship] Clarification on PTI scope

[James Gannon]

Yes this was a misunderstanding that was taken by ICANN staff in their interpretation at the time and lucky has been resolved now.

From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
Date: Sunday 24 April 2016 at 00:12
To: "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez at icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez at icann.org>>
Cc: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>, Christopher Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Clarification on PTI scope


Thanks for your response Xavier, just so this is not mixed up unnecessarily as the wording of your response seems not to answer my question(it even seem to be authenticating my concern); the CWG even in February did not propose what was reflected in the budget published on the 5th neither does the conversion happened post-ICANN55.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160424/cda003af/attachment.html>