[CWG-Stewardship] Question for Sidley

[Maarten Simon]

Hi Seun,
The multistakeholder comes in at the level of the periodic review and finally at the level of the ‘Stakeholder Community/Member Group thing that should if necessary step in and direct/overrule the ICANN board with regard to as well the follow up of recommendations from a periodic review as well as with regard to escalation matters around IANA.
Maarten

From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
Date: Friday 10 April 2015 00:08
To: Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>
Cc: SIDN SIDN <maarten.simon at sidn.nl<mailto:maarten.simon at sidn.nl>>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Question for Sidley


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<mailto: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<http://internetgovernance.org/>


_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20150409/02d93886/attachment.html>