On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I do not think we should avoid putting some multistakeholder character in the PTI.
It seems to me that the proposal _is_ multi-stakeholder. There are stakes -- names, numbers, protocol parameters -- and they're represented.
IETF laision (are we sure they would agree to this extra level of participation? We should be cautious assigning roles & responsibilities to them
I agree with this worry and thank you for raising it. One thing that's attractive about Milton's proposal, however, is that it simply adds a responsibility to a role alredy defined, so we don't have to find more volunteers and so on (though we do need to add this to the list of things the liaison would have to do). It certainly needs to be confirmed.
a GAC rep (government particpation) an ALAC (user particpatiion)
Why? IANA is a clerical job for a specific purpose. What ought the GAC or the ALAC have to say about it? By constraining the board to this narrow scope of those actually directly affected, we have the hope of constraining PTI from becoming the leverage with which to force other issues (much as has been done in this process, where the entirely clerical IANA job is getting used as the lever to cause ICANN governance changes).
an ICANN Board rep
Since the other appointees are already ICANN board members, why is an additional one needed?
If all accepted, that would bring it to 9. Still a small number.
In my experience, a team of five can make a decision that a group of 9 cannot. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com