[CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

[Seun Ojedeji]

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 24 May 2015 15:53, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
SO:
Edit:

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

Cheers!
> 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/c7568f04/attachment.html>