[CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board

[Greg Shatan]

Andrew,

Contract Co. was intended to have a small, tightly-focused board with the
legal minimum of responsibilities.  There was intended to be the larger,
multistakeholder MRT, which would have certain powers to control Contract
Co. in regard to certain activities under certain circumstances (possibly
through a membership model); perhaps you are thinking of the MRT role as
you cite the dangers of "Contract Co. land."

Greg

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Matthew Shears wrote:
> > 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.
>
> The maximal responsibilites the PTI board can have are its legal
> function and the normal board function of managerial oversight.  If it
> can be any larger than that, we're well into Contract Co land.
>
> So even if there is a slightly larger function, it still militates in
> favour of a small, tightly-focussed board along the lines Milton
> proposed.
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150420/fe345fc8/attachment.html>