[CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board

[Greg Shatan]

Alan,

First, I agree that the PTI board has responsibility for PTI, as described
in the excerpt I pasted in earlier.  Generically, "insider" boards are also
answerable to the parent company (sole shareholder) and to their board.  It
is typically a more constrained set of responsibilities, and much less
independent than the board of an independent company.  Even within those
parameters, there are more or less active boards.  I doubt that I would
describe any as a complete "puppet" -- was that someone else's positive
description or just your somewhat negative one?

Greg

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a624aa70/attachment-0001.html>