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

[Christopher Wilkinson]

in that case, one would have to be careful to ensure that the PTI Bylaws do not drift into the fundamental bylaws.

CW

On 16 Jun 2016, at 08:27, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

> Ah now I understand. 
> I would think the issue of what would happen during a separation and what that would look like would be dealt with at the time through the WG mechanisms we have designed, as there are a number of potential separation scenarios, not all of which require PTI to be spun off as an ongoing concern.
> 
> Also just to be clear there is no non-voting liaisons to the PTI board that I am aware of.
> 
> -JG
> 
> 
> From: Christopher Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> Date: Thursday 16 June 2016 at 06:37
> To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>, "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
> 
> 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/20160616/9f4f4159/attachment.html>