On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 01:36:20PM -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
while the IETF liaison might already be a ICANN board member, I did not think any of the others were.
Hmm. Ok. Could this be a liaison instead?
As for the GAC and ALAC. While the work that IANA can be called primarily clerical, the way it does its work, its budget, the degree to which it responsive, the way it deals with crises &c. are larger issues and in this multistakeholder environment, just seemed appropriate.
If it were possible for me to disagree with this more, I would disagree with it that much too. 1. "The way it does its work": a singluar and recurring weakness of ICANN is the constant dragging of the board into decisions that ought properly to be operational ones. The only question is whether what goes in and what comes out is acceptable. 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. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com