[CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I would like to put a proposal on the table on the composition of the
PTI Board.

Specifically

On 22-May-15 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
> * On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead of having
> a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should have a majority
> of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder modality.   e.g 1
> ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom.

Personally, I propose:

1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by ICANN Board
1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its President or
Executive Director or their designee
3 Nomcom Selections
various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community discussions

This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI staff has, but
would be large enough for some degree of diversity.

While in a formal sense, this would seem to be an outside Board, given
that the majority is picked by the ICANN community instead of the ICANN
staff, it is an insider board when considered from the perspective of
ICANN as a multistakeholder run organization.

It avoids the problem of deciding that one stakeholder type is more
appropriate that another, but allows the community on an annual basis to
decide which skills and knowledge are most important using a well
established ICANN method.  The skills and knowledge may vary over time,
including considerations such as operational experience,  financial
skill, international legal knowledge,  security capability, root zone
operator perspective, community policy perspective, DNS protocol or
system design expertise.  Those selected by the ICANN Nomcom could be
community insiders or outside experts, as decided by each Nomcom
according to the perceived needs at that time. The set of considerations
and needs would be decided on by the ICANN Nomcom in consultation with
ICANN Board & Staff, the multistakeholder community and PTI staff,
according to Nomcom's normal current and future practices.

In terms of the current discussions, it allows us to defer certain
decisions, such as which skill and knowledge categories are most
appropriate until they can address future understandings.  It avoid
having the CWG micromanage the future of the PTI Board, yet leaves it
under the community's control.


thanks
avri

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com