[CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board

Tue Apr 21 04:21:58 UTC 2015

Greg, I was supporting Jonathan's statement that it would make more 
sense to discuss who should be on the Board once we know what that 
Board will be doing.

I can live with it doing nothing and all of the decisions coming from 
the "parent" (thus my use of "puppet" as in someone pulling the 
strings). I can live with a fully responsible board which would 
require a different set of players.

One of the motivations for having a separate company is to have some 
independence from ICANN. If the ICANN Board makes all of the 
decisions, then the new accountability mechanisms will give the 
community the control it needs, but I am not sure why we are 
bothering with this new structure or how it can be perceived as 
providing any buffer from ICANN. If the ICANN Board does NOT make the 
decisions, then this Board must, and thus a need for the MS community 
to be able to have some level of control.

We need to decide WHAT we are doing before HOW.

Alan

At 20/04/2015 10:08 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>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 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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: <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>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
><mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>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/20150421/03b835d1/attachment.html>