Alan: Chuck said (and I agree) that two of the board members should be selected by the ccNSO and gNSO. It is obviously a mistake to refer to the GNSO as "registries." Registries are one of only 4 stakeholder groups there. As for ccNSO, given the fact that PTI manages the IANA, which has a particularly sensitive relationship to ccTLDs, I am having trouble understanding ALAC's objection to letting the ccNSO pick a director, also. Indeed, if I were a ccTLD operator, I would object strenuously to any solution that did NOT involve such a right. One could also argue that ccTLD operators and boards are often (though not always) chosen by a local MS community. I think ALAC needs to reconsider its position. It seems poorly thought out. --MM
-----Original Message----- Chuck, the ALAC has not reach consensus as to whether the PTI Board should be MS or not, but we have definitely reach closure on the PTI Board NOT having registries in a preferential position to other stakeholders (if indeed we end up with a MS PTI Board).