[CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I do not think we should avoid putting some multistakeholder character
> in the PTI. 

It seems to me that the proposal _is_ multi-stakeholder.  There are
stakes -- names, numbers, protocol parameters -- and they're
represented.

> IETF laision (are we sure they would agree to this extra level of
> participation?
>                       We should be cautious assigning roles &
> responsibilities to them

I agree with this worry and thank you for raising it.  One thing
that's attractive about Milton's proposal, however, is that it simply
adds a responsibility to a role alredy defined, so we don't have to
find more volunteers and so on (though we do need to add this to the
list of things the liaison would have to do).  It certainly needs to
be confirmed.

> a GAC rep  (government particpation)
> an ALAC  (user particpatiion)

Why?  IANA is a clerical job for a specific purpose.  What ought the
GAC or the ALAC have to say about it?  By constraining the board to
this narrow scope of those actually directly affected, we have the
hope of constraining PTI from becoming the leverage with which to
force other issues (much as has been done in this process, where the
entirely clerical IANA job is getting used as the lever to cause ICANN
governance changes).  

> an ICANN Board rep

Since the other appointees are already ICANN board members, why is an
additional one needed?

> If all accepted, that would bring it to 9.
> Still a small number.

In my experience, a team of five can make a decision that a group of 9
cannot.

Best regards,

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com