Hi, re: *PTI* 7) Please could you clarify whether or not compliance by ICANN and/or PTI is mandatory when decisions or recommendations are made by an IFR or Special IFR process. The CWG-Stewardship would like to confirm that compliance by ICANN and/or PTI is [mandatory / not mandatory] when decisions or recommendations are made by an IFR or Special IFR process. Former DT-N/X members are in particular requested to provided input to develop a draft response to this question. Consider whether legal guidance is needed. As one member of DT N/X I believe it should be mandatory. But currently we seem to only require that jointly the Board and the Community mechanism come to an agreed upon resolution to the recommendations. My comment to the CCWG review stated a personal belief that the ability to separate the Names portion* of IANA should be a community power. This comment has not yet been acted upon. In our document we were much more wishy-washy about it. avri * i find the siloization of this proposal a complication and the source of much of the confusion. While I said I think it can work in my comment to the ICG, the more I see the comments of the other OCs, the more I begin to doubt the coherence and sanity of the ICG aggregated proposal. avri On 29-Sep-15 09:57, Marika Konings wrote:
Dear All,
In order to facilitate the development of responses to the ICG Questions, staff has, in co-ordination with the chairs, prepared the attached table which provides a draft response for a number of the ICG questions which is intended to serve as a starting point for CWG-Stewardship deliberations. Please review this document and share your feedback with the mailing list, if possible, prior to the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday.
Thanks,
Marika
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus