[CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board

[Martin Boyle]

I’d see Milton’s approach as a good one – the PTI is an operational structure that has to take responsibility for delivering the quality of service and technical excellence required from the PTI:  essentially we need a management Board that can keep the IANA functions operation team focussed and resourced.

I could certainly go with one ccTLD and one gTLD rep as Brenden suggested – and why not chosen from ICANN Board members as they are going to be responsible on the Board for ensuring that the PTI has the resources necessary?  I also like his idea that the PTI’s executive director be on the Board – this seems to me to be quite usual practice.

While I have some sympathy for ensuring multi-stakeholder engagement, I think we actually need a Board that has the skills and expertise to ensure a successful operation.  The multi-stakeholder accountability should be from the ICANN Board as this is where resources (budget) come from.  It also comes in through the PRF and the general transparency that we should expect from the process.

We do not improve accountability by growing the Board or by stuffing it with people with little knowledge of the service they are managing.

Martin


From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: 20 April 2015 19:20
To: Andrew Sullivan
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board

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<mailto: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<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20150420/2bcf2855/attachment-0001.html>