<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20-Apr-15 14:48, Martin Boyle wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A33F95@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">While
I have some sympathy for ensuring multi-stakeholder
engagement, I think we actually need a Board that has the
skills and expertise to ensure a successful operation. The
multi-stakeholder accountability should be from the ICANN
Board as this is where resources (budget) come from. It also
comes in through the PRF and the general transparency that we
should expect from the process.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Why is there an assumption that this people would not have skills?<br>
<br>
With CSC being just registries and IGOs (the .int registrants), and
the PRT being periodic, it does seem like we are well on our way
toward a nearly multistakeholder free solution. <br>
<br>
Is that really what we want to present?<br>
<br>
I am comfortable with taking the CSC - they already are prepesented
by GNSO/ccNSO & IETF and RIRs (they are ICANN customers not
IANA direct customers) out of the mix if it is too big.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="http://www.avast.com/">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br><a href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>