Milton, It all depends on the role. I would be unhappy if a ccNSO director (or a GNSO one for that matter) thought that part of their role was to talk about (say) a redelegation of .uk. We are back to the problem of having well-meaning and worthy people in a position. That "ccTLD operators and boards are often (though not always) chosen by a local MS community" does not mean that they should be able to judge - yet another judge - in an already delicate relationship. That's not that I do not support your argument - if we have to have cross membership of the two Boards, then Chuck's proposal is sensible (so long as they cannot opine on the merits of a delegation/redelegation, only on whether due process has been followed and documented). It is just that they at least will have a reasonable idea of forward planning and resourcing and requirements for the service. I fear we are drifting from a management board role - a board that will fight PTI's corner with the ICANN Board for resources and ensure that deterioration of service quality is dealt with quickly (even without prompting from the CSC). Martin -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: 25 May 2015 17:39 To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition Alan: Chuck said (and I agree) that two of the board members should be selected by the ccNSO and gNSO. It is obviously a mistake to refer to the GNSO as "registries." Registries are one of only 4 stakeholder groups there. As for ccNSO, given the fact that PTI manages the IANA, which has a particularly sensitive relationship to ccTLDs, I am having trouble understanding ALAC's objection to letting the ccNSO pick a director, also. Indeed, if I were a ccTLD operator, I would object strenuously to any solution that did NOT involve such a right. One could also argue that ccTLD operators and boards are often (though not always) chosen by a local MS community. I think ALAC needs to reconsider its position. It seems poorly thought out. --MM
-----Original Message----- Chuck, the ALAC has not reach consensus as to whether the PTI Board should be MS or not, but we have definitely reach closure on the PTI Board NOT having registries in a preferential position to other stakeholders (if indeed we end up with a MS PTI Board).
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship