<html>
<body>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
We need to decide WHAT we are doing before HOW.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 20/04/2015 10:08 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Alan,<br><br>
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?<br><br>
Greg <br><br>
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>I agree that some clarity here would be useful.<br><br>
<dd>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.<font color="#888888"><br><br>
<dd>Alan</font><br><br>
<br>
<dd>At 20/04/2015 12:45 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>All,<br><br>
<dd>In thinking about the composition of the board, we need to be clear
about<br>
<dd>the purpose or function of the board and what (if any) tasks it needs
to<br>
<dd>undertake and or decisions it needs to make.<br><br>
<dd>It is clear to me that it has (at minimum) a legal function but
that<br>
<dd>function may well be filled by a minimum board that we previously
referred<br>
<dd>to as an internal or insider board.<br><br>
<dd>Are we clear that the PTI board has a function beyond that minimum
and that<br>
<dd>the functions we may require it to perform are not already to be
performed<br>
<dd>elsewhere?<br><br>
<dd>Thanks,<br><br>
<dd>Jonathan<br><br>
<dd>-----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>From: Andrew Sullivan
[<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>]<br>
<dd>Sent: 20 April 2015 17:36<br>
<dd>To:
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board<br><br>
<dd>On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
<dd>> Hi,<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> I do not think we should avoid putting some multistakeholder
character<br>
<dd>> in the PTI.<br><br>
<dd>It seems to me that the proposal _is_ multi-stakeholder. There
are stakes<br>
<dd>-- names, numbers, protocol parameters -- and they're
represented.<br><br>
<dd>> IETF laision (are we sure they would agree to this extra level
of<br>
<dd>> participation?<br>
<dd>>
We should be cautious assigning roles &<br>
<dd>> responsibilities to them<br><br>
<dd>I agree with this worry and thank you for raising it. One thing
that's<br>
<dd>attractive about Milton's proposal, however, is that it simply adds
a<br>
<dd>responsibility to a role alredy defined, so we don't have to find
more<br>
<dd>volunteers and so on (though we do need to add this to the list of
things<br>
<dd>the liaison would have to do). It certainly needs to be
confirmed.<br><br>
<dd>> a GAC rep (government particpation)<br>
<dd>> an ALAC (user particpatiion)<br><br>
<dd>Why? IANA is a clerical job for a specific purpose. What
ought the GAC or<br>
<dd>the ALAC have to say about it? By constraining the board to
this narrow<br>
<dd>scope of those actually directly affected, we have the hope of
constraining<br>
<dd>PTI from becoming the leverage with which to force other issues (much
as has<br>
<dd>been done in this process, where the entirely clerical IANA job is
getting<br>
<dd>used as the lever to cause ICANN governance changes).<br><br>
<dd>> an ICANN Board rep<br><br>
<dd>Since the other appointees are already ICANN board members, why is
an<br>
<dd>additional one needed?<br><br>
<dd>> If all accepted, that would bring it to 9.<br>
<dd>> Still a small number.<br><br>
<dd>In my experience, a team of five can make a decision that a group of
9<br>
<dd>cannot.<br><br>
<dd>Best regards,<br><br>
<dd>A<br><br>
<br>
<dd>--<br>
<dd>Andrew Sullivan<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br><br>
</dl><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br><br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>