Thanks Seun. That is helpful clarification. I would like to note though that under the DT-M recommendations the CSC is not able to initiate an IFR either
but rather escalates the problem to the ccNSO and GNSO and the SOs can do that.
Chuck
From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 5:43 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: DT-M (dt6@icann.org); cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments
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
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship