[CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Mon May 25 14:56:59 UTC 2015 

Hi,

In terms of the 2&3, I once thought that way and then discovered that
the Numbers and Protocols did not necessarily want that responsibility. 
I do not beleive we can suggest such a possibility.  Though perhaps it
could eventually be arrived at if requested by those communities.

Also, you would not give the PTI chief an ex-officio seat? 
And why does ICANN Board-Staff get 2 seats?

avri

On 25-May-15 09:19, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
> In this whole process, I had always assumed:
>
> * 1 Board member from names community
> * 1 Board member from numbers community
> * 1 Board member from protocols community
> * 1 IANA staff member
> * 1 ICANN Board member
>
> Let each group decide on its representative.
>
> Simple, balanced, effective. 
>
> I think the most important thing would be to have as little politics
> and process as possible.
>
>
> Kieren
>
> -
> [sent through phone]
>
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com
> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
>
>     Alan,
>
>     Assuming a PTI Board of 5 or larger, two registry related
>     Directors would not be in a preferential position in terms of
>     majority. In my opinion, having a couple Directors who understand
>     the functioning of the IFO in meeting TLD registry needs would
>     increase the chances that the Board would " have the requisite
>     skills and knowledge to do that quickly and effectively".
>
>     Chuck
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>     Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM
>     To: Gomes, Chuck; avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>     Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
>
>     Chuck, the ALAC has not reach consensus as to whether the PTI
>     Board should be MS or not, but we have definitely reach closure on
>     the PTI Board NOT having registries in a preferential position to
>     other stakeholders (if indeed we end up with a MS PTI Board).
>
>     In my personal opinion, the PTI Board will have relatively little
>     to do in a steady-state situation where everything is working well.
>     However, if things are NOT going well, it is the PTI Board that
>     would need to be the first line of recourse in fixing it, and it
>     must have the requisite skills and knowledge to do that quickly
>     and effectively.
>
>     Alan
>
>     At 24/05/2015 10:25 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>     >Avri,
>     >
>     >It is not clear to me that the NomCom's mission and makeup is the
>     right
>     >fit to appoint PTI Directors, and particularly a majority of them.
>     >
>     >I haven't tested this idea with others yet, but I kind of like
>     the idea
>     >of having one each of the ICANN Directors elected by the ccNSO
>     and GNSO
>     >serve on the PTI Board. In an ICANN membership structure, the
>     ccNSO or
>     >GNSO could remove their appointed directors if they were not
>     >accountability.
>     >
>     >Chuck
>     >
>     >-----Original Message-----
>     >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>     >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>     >Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM
>     >To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>     >Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
>     >
>     >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
>     >_______________________________________________
>     >CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>     >CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>     >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>     CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>


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

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list