[CWG-Stewardship] Final Version for Publication (redline)

[Greg Shatan]

Seun,

Actually there is quite a bit of leeway regarding the size and duties of a
board, above the statutory minimum and essential aspects such as fiduciary
duty.  Also, as has been discussed, where an entity is owned or controlled
by another entity (as is planned to be the case with PTI) the board may be
an "insider" board (composed of board members and executives of the parent)
and may be beholden to the parent company.  This would lead to a minimalist
board set-up, both in size and scope.  There was a vigorous discussion of
various options on the list in the last few days, which did not yield any
clear result.

Greg

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> Yeah I meant the board, but logically speaking one would expect that the
> role of PTI would also dictate/determine the role of it's board; A typical
> organisation board ensures it's mission/purpose is carried out.
>
> As per the template, I think you are right about that. Finger crossed then
> on getting  specific direction from the community, even though it's not
> included in our proposal.
>
> Cheers!
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 23 Apr 2015 07:27, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Seun,
>>
>> I assume you are referring to the PTI Board and not to the PTI entity as
>> a whole.  I think the role of the PTI entity is fairly clear.  As to the
>> role and composition of the PTI Board, I don't believe there was sufficient
>> convergence on anything that could be included, even in the alternative.
>> Thus, I would say that it was a good idea *not* to include it.
>>
>> As for the public comment template, I saw no indication in our
>> discussions that it was intended to contain any specific questions.
>> Rather, my understanding was that it was essentially a series of sections,
>> following the subsections of the proposal, that could be filled in by the
>> commenter.  Having looked at the template, it appears consistent with that
>> understanding.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Great! Thanks for this. I think it would have been a good idea to have
>>> included the roles of the PTI as I think its a critical entity in this
>>> proposal.
>>> That said, I hope the PC template would ask for suggestions from the
>>> community on the role and composition of PTI
>>>
>>> Thanks to everyone that made this happen.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> sent from Google nexus 4
>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>> On 23 Apr 2015 00:52, "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad at icann.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> *Sending this note on behalf of the Chairs — Grace*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Attached is the final document (v3.5) to be published shortly as the
>>>> CWG-Stewardship 2nd Draft Proposal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Changes to the document include edits and suggestions that were sent to
>>>> the mailing list following circulation of the document after yesterday’s
>>>> call (v3.4). In addition, in the interest of time, the Chairs had to make a
>>>> few editorial decisions as listed below in order of appearance:
>>>>
>>>>    - We have synchronised the Section III introductory text with the
>>>>    text we included in our Foreword/Executive Summary.
>>>>    - We have removed the paragraph on the possible PTI Board roles,
>>>>    since (a) this text was suggested by Sidley Austin to be optional and (b)
>>>>    it is dependent on the legal structure of PTI which we have not yet
>>>>    finalised (and therefore did not want to pre-empt in the Public Comment).
>>>>    - We have included and edited version of the placeholder text
>>>>    offered by Paul Kane regarding the progress in DT-A (SLE) work.
>>>>    - We have edited Annex L on the Separation Review so as to reflect
>>>>    the status of the discussions in the CWG-Stewardship and again, not to
>>>>    pre-empt in the document for Public Comment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Staff will ensure the 2nd Draft Proposal will be published shortly. The
>>>> ‘package’ of documents to be published will include:
>>>>
>>>>    1. A Foreword from the Chairs (which provides an executive summary
>>>>    of the 2nd Draft Proposal)
>>>>    2. The 2nd Draft Proposal (with annexes)
>>>>    3. The 2nd Draft Proposal (without annexes)
>>>>    4. The Public Comment template (to provide a preferred structure
>>>>    for feedback)
>>>>    5. An updated version of the XPlane Handout (which includes a
>>>>    visualization of the proposed post-transition model)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As noted by Staff, we have cancelled the CWG-Stewardship calls on
>>>> Thursday 23 April and Tuesday 28 April. *We will pick up again on
>>>> Thursday 30 April at 11:00 UTC*.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please encourage your communities to join the briefing webinars on
>>>> Friday 24 April: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en.
>>>> For RSVPs, please contact Brenda Brewer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank-you to all of you and the ICANN staff who have contributed
>>>> significant effort over a short space of time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan and Lise
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20150423/61a0dbb7/attachment.html>