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.

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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship