[CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Thu Jun 4 20:39:14 UTC 2015


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?


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.

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list