[IOTF] [CWG-Stewardship] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table

[Christopher Wilkinson]

No. As long as there is no separation, the existing non-voting liaisons are enough.
In the event of separation, there will obviously be a demand from GAC for equivalent influence.

After all, one of the primary motives in creating the GAC in the first place (1998) was IANA and its relationship with ccTLDs.

CW


On 16 Jun 2016, at 07:25, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

> I don’t understand your point Christopher, are you saying that there should be reps from the Acs on the PTI board?
> 
> -JG
> 
> From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Christopher Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> Date: Thursday 16 June 2016 at 01:12
> To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>, "iotf at icann.org" <iotf at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table
> 
> Good evening:
> 
> Regarding the PTI Bylaws document please note the following:
> 
> Section 6.6 Advisory Committees
> 
> PTI Board will not need Advisory Committees as long as it is an integral part of ICANN.
> 
> in the event of separation, PTI Board will require GAC and ALAC Advisory Committees.
> In that event, it is likely that PTI will also require SSAC and RSSAC Advisory Committees.
> 
> Section 7.1 - Officers
> 
> N.B. The text refers to Officers. The comment refers to Offices.
> 
> Regards
> 
> CW
> 
> 
> On 15 Jun 2016, at 23:16, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org> wrote:
> 
>> <PTIBylaws-AoI_clean_15June.pdf>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/attachments/20160616/3472f312/attachment-0001.html>