[CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi Avri,

Thanks for the attempt, I don't think the noncom option would work
especially as they would be selecting within stakeholders that are more
than 3. I would have love to have an MS PTI board, but the possibility of
it not becoming a large one may not be realistic.
I see 3 options going forward:

- PTI gets filled with a committee of ICANN board and IANA most senior staff

- PTI gets filled with 2 ICANN global leaders, 1 ICANN board liaison and
IANA most senior staff

- We ask legal if it's compulsory to have a for PTI and if it isn't then
the most senior IANA staff should just manage PTI and report to ICANN
board/community

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 24 May 2015 13:50, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150524/a840df94/attachment.html>