I generally agree with Milton’s points here except for, “The PTI board is responsible … for oversight…  The PRF escalation path should go through the PTI board, for example.”

I feel uncomfortable about the PTI Board providing oversight of the role it is performing (except in a management oversight role):  I believe that that is the ICANN role.  And I think that I agree with the Sidley model (which I thought we agreed when we discussed the PRF) where the review is written in the ICANN bylaws and the PRF is to the ICANN Board (which would then be responsible for ensuring that any concerns were put to right).

Have I misunderstood Milton’s point?

Martin

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: 21 April 2015 15:33
To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Greg Shatan'
Cc: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org'
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board

One of the motivations for having a separate company is to have some independence from ICANN.

MM: Agreed.

We need to decide WHAT we are doing before HOW.

MM: The reason I proposed a “how” (a small PTI board composed of names, number and protocols person(s) was that I thought we did know “what” the PTI board was doing. The PTI board is responsible for the management of the IANA functions and for oversight. It should be fairly autonomous from the ICANN board and of course that is the reason we are creating a legally separate affiliate. The PRF escalation path should go through the PTI board, for example.