[CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments
cgomes at verisign.com
Thu Jun 4 21:01:33 UTC 2015
Good catch Avri and good question. Can anyone think of a reason why the ICANN Board should not be able to request an SIFR?
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
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.
> "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
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
More information about the CWG-Stewardship