[CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

[Alan Greenberg]

The ICANN Board is similarly composed of people named by the 
"community" including the NomCom and we are putting an immense effort 
into adding new accountability measures to protect us from them 
(forgive my wording but to a large extent, this IS what all this 
amounts to. Yes you are saying that this new PTI Board would not need 
any accountability?

In my personal opinion, the ICANN Board needs community-selected 
members and "new blood" via the NomCom because the Board is 
overseeing a MS operation and must weigh and balance the desired and 
needs of the various parts of the community. On the other hand, the 
PTI Board is, as we have been repeatedly told, overseeing a 
relatively small and simple non-profit business and the Board has no 
such "balancing" needs.

Alan


At 24/05/2015 08:49 AM, Avri Doria 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