Hi MM,

I mostly support that approach, but I'd propose the following modifications. Instead of one naming community representative, I'd suggest one from the GNSO and one from ccNSO. In addition, I'd suggest adding the Exec Dir of the PTI to the board. In total, a lightweight and small five person board.

-- Brenden

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

Regarding the composition of the board, the Summary of Legal Structure says only: “The PTI board could be an ICANN-designated board” and that we should “avoid the need to replicate the complexity of the multistakeholder ICANN board.” I agree with the latter concern, but we will need to flesh out more detail regarding the composition of the PTI board.

I have missed most recent calls, so perhaps this has been discussed already, but if it has, it didn’t appear in the Sidley Austin draft.

I think a simple and easily implementable solution would be to have ICANN-designated members be fixed by rules or bylaws (as opposed to wholly discretionary).

In my view, the PTI board should consist of the following 3 members:

1.       The existing IETF liaison on the ICANN board

2.       Someone designated by the ASO

3.       Someone designated by ICANN’s board essentially representing the naming community. One could add to this a recommendation from the CSC if one wanted, I would be amenable to that.

This PTI board would be balanced across the 3 operational communities and thus would be in a good position to provide oversight for the IANA functions.

--MM

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 8:50 AM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Structure and comments from Sidley Austin

Dear All,

Please be aware of the following documents from Sidley Austin.

1.       The structural model diagram

2.       Summary of Legal Structure

3.       CWG - Draft Transition Proposal (Sidley Comments)

Best regards,

Lise