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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi Chuck,

I think we should qualify the statement of AFRALO accurately. While it was
recommended that PTI board could make such request for an IFR, AFRALO did
not suggest that PTI be the initiator but rather CSC.
The point therefore is that PTI board would not have any basis to recommend
for an IFR if the CSC does not escalate such to it.

We should also note that AFRALO statement was made before the CWG
determined a certain direction of the nature of PTI board.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150605/065ad4a8/attachment-0001.html>