On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 04:30:55PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
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.)
I agree with this. The PTI board, and for that matter the PTI, does what it's told unless that "what it's told" runs contrary to what IANA ought to be doing. For names that might be slightly different than for other types of registries, but certainly instructions (1) that it can't understand or (2) that are inconsistent with other parts of the system or (3) that do not conform to the technical criteria for the DNS or (4) that are inconsistent with the overarching policy would have to wait until resolution of the condition. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com