[CWG-Stewardship] Question for Sidley

[Seun Ojedeji]

MM:
.....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

SO:
Based on above, what then is the role of CSC? and more importantly where
does multistakeholder come in....Is PTI just about creating more seats
within ICANN for a few privileged without accountability to the community?
As S-A mentioned, who/how does PTI not become more unaccountable than the
current ICANN board.(paraphrased)

MM:
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

SO:
Which is practically the role currently carried out by ICANN(board) as it
concerns IANA function operation.

Overall maybe I am missing something in the puzzle

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 9 Apr 2015 22:42, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150409/a39b5680/attachment.html>