[CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 01:36:20PM -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
> while the IETF liaison might already be a ICANN board member, I did not
> think any of the others were.

Hmm.  Ok.  Could this be a liaison instead?

> As for the GAC and ALAC.  While the work that IANA can be called
> primarily clerical,  the way it does its work, its budget, the degree to
> which it responsive, the way it deals with crises &c. are larger issues
> and in this multistakeholder environment, just seemed appropriate.

If it were possible for me to disagree with this more, I would
disagree with it that much too.

1.  "The way it does its work": a singluar and recurring weakness of
ICANN is the constant dragging of the board into decisions that ought
properly to be operational ones.  The only question is whether what
goes in and what comes out is acceptable.

2.  "Its budget": PTI does not need a multistakeholder process to
establish.  It needs clear managerial oversight with respect to what
IANA is going to need to do, and that will establish what the costs
and expenditures are.  Moreover, since we know where the money is
going to come from, that portion of the budget is already subject to
multistakeholder observation.

3.  "Degree to which it is responsive": Responsiveness is dealt with
under the service level expectations for the various communities.
This shouldn't be the job of the board, because it's the job of the
CSC.

4.  "The way it deals with crises": I'd like to know what these
looming crises are supposed to be before we vastly expand
representation on the board.  It seems to me that the greatest
opportunity for crisis comes from PTI not sticking to its narrow
function.  The surest way to cause that is to appoint board members
who do not have an interest in the narrowest possible interpretation
of PTI's mandate.

Best regards,

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com