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