[CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

Mon May 25 18:34:52 UTC 2015

I will add a personal +1 to your statement Donna

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 25 May 2015 19:30, "Donna Austin" <Donna.Austin at ariservices.com> wrote:

> All
>
> Has it been decided what the PTI Board would do?
>
> It seems we should decide on this before we get into composition. The RySG
> comments have a strong preference for the PTI to be the IANA Dept. as we
> know it, so business as usual without any undue interference and without
> the possibility of causing uncertainty for current IANA staff. IANA
> services are currently satisfactory and we don't want to jeopardise that
> post transition.
>
> We have developed other mechanisms to provide for regular monitoring and
> review, with escalation to deal with non-performance or systemic problems.
> I don't understand why we need an added, unnecessary in my view, layer of
> bureaucracy to the PTI Board.
>
> Donna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM
> To: Alan Greenberg; avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
>
> 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/20150525/7998252b/attachment.html>