<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.)</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Milton L Mueller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 02:16:23AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
> > This issue (who makes decisions about or approves "architectural<br>
> > changes to the root system" in the absence of the NTIA) bears further<br>
> > review. The CSC doesn't seem like the right place at all. The PTI<br>
> > Board makes some sense, but only if we are not keeping it minimalist.<br>
> > Could the NTIA role simply disappear (as we propose to happen with the<br>
> > authorization/validation function)?<br>
><br>
> Why isn't this the names community within ICANN? That's where the policy<br>
> resides, I thought?<br>
><br>
<br>
Good point. While the policy might be developed by some combination of ccNSO and GNSO, The "decider" should be the PTI board, not the ICANN board. Speaking as someone who was on DT-F, we understood these "architectural changes" to be processes that drew on a broad range of expertise around the community, and viewed NTIA's role as someone who made the final approval rather than as someone who ran the policy process.<br>
<br>
Another point here is that ICANN's policy making apparatus is actually poorly organized when it comes to decisions that cross ccTLD and GTLD lines. I think they would have to form a cross-community working group to deal with such issues. Nothing terribly difficult about that, but I still think it makes a lot more sense for the recommendations of such a ccwg to be submitted to the PTI board for approval than the ICANN board.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>