[CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board

[Matthew Shears]

Jonathan

In that regard, one of the questions I think we have to answer is what 
responsibility does the PTI Board have vis-a-vis the IANA functions 
team, if any?  If there is a management responsibility (and I would 
assume there is if PTI is the operator) then the PTI Board is more than 
just a legal function.  The IANA team I assume would be accountable to 
the PTI Board, the PTI Board in turn to the ICANN Board.  So, if as a 
result of the periodic review undertaken by the PRT there are changes 
that should be implemented in the IANA team or its operations, the PTI 
Board (as operator) would implement those changes.  Seems to me that 
this points to a PTI Board that has a broader role than just a legal 
purpose related to the affiliate.

Matthew

On 4/20/2015 5:45 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
> All,
>
> In thinking about the composition of the board, we need to be clear about
> the purpose or function of the board and what (if any) tasks it needs to
> undertake and or decisions it needs to make.
>
> It is clear to me that it has (at minimum) a legal function but that
> function may well be filled by a minimum board that we previously referred
> to as an internal or insider board.
>
> Are we clear that the PTI board has a function beyond that minimum and that
> the functions we may require it to perform are not already to be performed
> elsewhere?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com]
> Sent: 20 April 2015 17:36
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-- 
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987