Ah now I understand. I would think the issue of what would happen during a separation and what that would look like would be dealt with at the time through the WG mechanisms we have designed, as there are a number of potential separation scenarios, not all of which require PTI to be spun off as an ongoing concern. Also just to be clear there is no non-voting liaisons to the PTI board that I am aware of. -JG From: Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Date: Thursday 16 June 2016 at 06:37 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>, "iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>" <iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table No. As long as there is no separation, the existing non-voting liaisons are enough. In the event of separation, there will obviously be a demand from GAC for equivalent influence. After all, one of the primary motives in creating the GAC in the first place (1998) was IANA and its relationship with ccTLDs. CW On 16 Jun 2016, at 07:25, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: I don’t understand your point Christopher, are you saying that there should be reps from the Acs on the PTI board? -JG From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Date: Thursday 16 June 2016 at 01:12 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>, "iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>" <iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table Good evening: Regarding the PTI Bylaws document please note the following: Section 6.6 Advisory Committees PTI Board will not need Advisory Committees as long as it is an integral part of ICANN. in the event of separation, PTI Board will require GAC and ALAC Advisory Committees. In that event, it is likely that PTI will also require SSAC and RSSAC Advisory Committees. Section 7.1 - Officers N.B. The text refers to Officers. The comment refers to Offices. Regards CW On 15 Jun 2016, at 23:16, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> wrote: <PTIBylaws-AoI_clean_15June.pdf>