<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Alan,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Alan Greenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I agree that some clarity here would be useful.<br>
<br>
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.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Alan</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
At 20/04/2015 12:45 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
All,<br>
<br>
In thinking about the composition of the board, we need to be clear about<br>
the purpose or function of the board and what (if any) tasks it needs to<br>
undertake and or decisions it needs to make.<br>
<br>
It is clear to me that it has (at minimum) a legal function but that<br>
function may well be filled by a minimum board that we previously referred<br>
to as an internal or insider board.<br>
<br>
Are we clear that the PTI board has a function beyond that minimum and that<br>
the functions we may require it to perform are not already to be performed<br>
elsewhere?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Jonathan<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>]<br>
Sent: 20 April 2015 17:36<br>
To: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board<br>
<br>
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> I do not think we should avoid putting some multistakeholder character<br>
> in the PTI.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that the proposal _is_ multi-stakeholder. There are stakes<br>
-- names, numbers, protocol parameters -- and they're represented.<br>
<br>
> IETF laision (are we sure they would agree to this extra level of<br>
> participation?<br>
> We should be cautious assigning roles &<br>
> responsibilities to them<br>
<br>
I agree with this worry and thank you for raising it. One thing that's<br>
attractive about Milton's proposal, however, is that it simply adds a<br>
responsibility to a role alredy defined, so we don't have to find more<br>
volunteers and so on (though we do need to add this to the list of things<br>
the liaison would have to do). It certainly needs to be confirmed.<br>
<br>
> a GAC rep (government particpation)<br>
> an ALAC (user particpatiion)<br>
<br>
Why? IANA is a clerical job for a specific purpose. What ought the GAC or<br>
the ALAC have to say about it? By constraining the board to this narrow<br>
scope of those actually directly affected, we have the hope of constraining<br>
PTI from becoming the leverage with which to force other issues (much as has<br>
been done in this process, where the entirely clerical IANA job is getting<br>
used as the lever to cause ICANN governance changes).<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>
> 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" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>