<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
On 20 Apr 2015 17:37, "Andrew Sullivan" <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > an ICANN Board rep<br>
><br>
> Since the other appointees are already ICANN board members, why is an<br>
> additional one needed?<br>
><br>
SO: I am not sure it's been determined yet that PTI will be populated from ICANN board. Considering ICANN is expected to act as oversight on PTI, it may be better to populate from the community; independent of ICANN board members.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">> > If all accepted, that would bring it to 9.<br>
> > Still a small number.<br>
><br>
> In my experience, a team of five can make a decision that a group of 9<br>
> cannot.<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
><br>
> A<br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Andrew Sullivan<br>
> <a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</p>