If it were possible for me to disagree with this more, I would disagree with it that much too.
2. "Its budget": PTI does not need a multistakeholder process to establish. It needs clear managerial oversight with respect to what IANA is going to need to do, and that will establish what the costs and expenditures are. Moreover, since we know where the money is going to come from, that portion of the budget is already subject to multistakeholder observation.
3. "Degree to which it is responsive": Responsiveness is dealt with under the service level expectations for the various communities. This shouldn't be the job of the board, because it's the job of the CSC.
4. "The way it deals with crises": I'd like to know what these looming crises are supposed to be before we vastly expand
representation on the board. It seems to me that the greatest opportunity for crisis comes from PTI not sticking to its narrow function. The surest way to cause that is to appoint board members who do not have an interest in the narrowest possible interpretation of PTI's mandate.
|
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
|