[CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board

[Alan Greenberg]

I agree that some clarity here would be useful.

The Board *IS* responsible for the PTI. Perhaps some envision it as a 
puppet to some other entity (including budget decisions as well as 
overseeing senior IANA staff). If that is the case, please specify who.

Alan

At 20/04/2015 12:45 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
>All,
>
>In thinking about the composition of the board, we need to be clear about
>the purpose or function of the board and what (if any) tasks it needs to
>undertake and or decisions it needs to make.
>
>It is clear to me that it has (at minimum) a legal function but that
>function may well be filled by a minimum board that we previously referred
>to as an internal or insider board.
>
>Are we clear that the PTI board has a function beyond that minimum and that
>the functions we may require it to perform are not already to be performed
>elsewhere?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jonathan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com]
>Sent: 20 April 2015 17:36
>To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board
>
>On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I do not think we should avoid putting some multistakeholder character
> > in the PTI.
>
>It seems to me that the proposal _is_ multi-stakeholder.  There are stakes
>-- names, numbers, protocol parameters -- and they're represented.
>
> > IETF laision (are we sure they would agree to this extra level of
> > participation?
> >                       We should be cautious assigning roles &
> > responsibilities to them
>
>I agree with this worry and thank you for raising it.  One thing that's
>attractive about Milton's proposal, however, is that it simply adds a
>responsibility to a role alredy defined, so we don't have to find more
>volunteers and so on (though we do need to add this to the list of things
>the liaison would have to do).  It certainly needs to be confirmed.
>
> > a GAC rep  (government particpation)
> > an ALAC  (user particpatiion)
>
>Why?  IANA is a clerical job for a specific purpose.  What ought the GAC or
>the ALAC have to say about it?  By constraining the board to this narrow
>scope of those actually directly affected, we have the hope of constraining
>PTI from becoming the leverage with which to force other issues (much as has
>been done in this process, where the entirely clerical IANA job is getting
>used as the lever to cause ICANN governance changes).
>
> > an ICANN Board rep
>
>Since the other appointees are already ICANN board members, why is an
>additional one needed?
>
> > If all accepted, that would bring it to 9.
> > Still a small number.
>
>In my experience, a team of five can make a decision that a group of 9
>cannot.
>
>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