[CWG-Stewardship] Question for Sidley

[Milton L Mueller]

You mention ' a distinct governance body devoted to IANA performance and oversight issues'. Am I correct that your underlying assumption here is that the board of PTI will be a multistakeholder body and that they will oversee (and operate) the IANA function ?


Maarten - No. The Sidley-Austin discussion draft said the PTI board could be ICANN-controlled or "independent and multistakeholder."
I think it's obvious that the PT-IANA board should be _independent_ of ICANN - that would be a requirement of proper separation of the policy making function from IANA. But I do not think the board needs to be "multistakeholder" if "multistakeholder" means that all the different stakeholder groups involved in policy making have to be equally represented on it. Ideally the board of a PTI would be small and very technical. It would be accountable to the broad multi-stakeholder community through the Periodic Review Function. The PRF obviates the need for a MSH board.

In response to your last point, in my view the PTI board _oversees_ the IANA function; the operation of it, obviously, will be done by the staff.

Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150409/9db95219/attachment.html>