[CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

Mon May 25 16:02:59 UTC 2015

What about a representative for the end user? Say a CS representative?
On May 25, 2015 4:19 PM, "Kieren McCarthy" <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com> 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> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150525/51f185f9/attachment.html>