[CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

On 20-Apr-15 14:48, Martin Boyle wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Why is there an assumption that this people would not have skills?

With CSC being just registries and IGOs (the .int registrants), and the
PRT being periodic, it does seem like we are well on our way toward a
nearly multistakeholder free solution. 

Is that really what we want to present?

I am comfortable with taking the CSC - they already are prepesented by
GNSO/ccNSO  & IETF  and RIRs (they are ICANN customers not IANA direct
customers) out of the mix if it is too big.

avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150420/c6ad4108/attachment.html>