[CWG-Stewardship] CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP - Please respond by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016

[Avri Doria]

On 22-Jan-16 08:52, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> A few comments inline and please note that i am speaking within the
> scope of names in relation to PTI (which is not the entire PTI scope)


I think this is overstated.  Yes the PTI only deals with names
directly.  But for protocols and numbers, it relies on ICANN to deal
with PTI.  So how is ICANN supposed to protect the interests and appeals
on behalf of its customers?

Numbers and protocols want to be completely separate from PTI and rely
on ICANN instead.  i qustion the sanity of such an approach, but they
are happy and trust ICANN so that is the way it is.  But whether it is
from the 'direct' customers of PTI or the 'indirect' customers such as
users, registrants, protocols or numbers, we need for a way for such
appeals to be made on our behalf, either by the CSC or by ICANN itself.

avri

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus