[CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board

[Greg Shatan]

I would disagree with CW's suggestion.  This is germane and on-topic for
this forum.  The PTI board is a reasonably significant aspect of the CWG's
proposal.  It would be an abdication of our responsibilities not to propose
a board when we are proposing such an entity.  "All stakeholders" will be
free to comment during the public comment period (which is, of course, an
open process).  The other IANA "customer" communities can also weigh in
directly during the ICG phase.  It should also be kept in mind that this is
the board of an entity wholly-controlled by ICANN, so it is essentially an
internal-to-ICANN matter.

Greg Shatan


On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:32 PM, CW Lists <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
wrote:

> Good evening:
>
> May I suggest that the present thread is off-topic, if not invidious.
> The composition of the eventual PTI Board, if any, should be discussed in
> open process with all stakeholders concerned, when the time comes.
> CWG is not the appropriate forum.
>
> CW
>
>
> On 20 Apr 2015, at 20:20, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150420/7a6fbdfd/attachment.html>