[CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

[Alan Greenberg]

To be clear, when I say I am giving a "personal" position, it is to 
explicitly state that I am not presenting an ALAC or At-Large 
consensus-derived position which might be construed if U was silent 
on the issue.

And separability has never been particularly high on the ALAC 
priority list (and here I AM speaking on behalf of the ALAC).

Alan

At 24/05/2015 04:10 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>I'm always a little tickled by the Orwellian turn of phrasing to 
>mask plain desires.  All this 
>'to'ing-and-fro'ing-on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other-hand is for nought.
>
>Here's an idea. Squint your eyes and re-read all the opinions, 
>including the 'personal' ones.  What comes out is that we favour a 
>PTI Board of 'insiders' even as we would wish to project a semblance 
>of 'separability'.  We desperately want to have our cake and cut our calories.
>
>The contest is to figure out how to make some members - of the PTI 
>Board - more 'equal' than others!  Easy.  Make an ICANN employee a 
>Board member.
>
>Tch.
>
>-CAS
>
>
>==============================
>Carlton A Samuels
>Mobile: 876-818-1799
>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
>=============================
>
>On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>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>http://www.avast.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>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/20150524/26c9c02c/attachment.html>