[CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

Tue May 26 02:12:25 UTC 2015

Avri,

I think that so long as PTI is controlled by ICANN, ICANN and the ICANN
Board can and should take much of the responsibility for PTI's functioning
and decision-making, rather than the PTI Board.  As such, the PTI Board
just needs to act as a conduit for decisions made by its "parent," ICANN.
If ICANN no longer controls PTI, things will need to change, but I suggest
that now is not the time to make that change.

Greg

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We have talked about it quite a bit.
>
> I do not believe the CWG can be completely deterministic on what the PTI
> will and won't do, the exigencies of the situations it finds itself in
> will determine that.    It will obviously have to deal with the relities
> of being a company like budget and development plans.  It will deal with
> staffing levels.  It may face issues of schedules and funding for major
> innovation in equipment and software.  It will have to deal with issues
> brought to it through the CSC and other escalation mechanisms. It may
> have to deal with [inter]national ccTLD issues. PTI may even have to
> respond to an RFP put out as a result of of an IFR, and I am sure a PTI
> Board would be involved.
>
> This is one reason I suggest the the Nomcom pick 3.  To deal with the
> variability of issues that the PTI may face in a considered informed
> manner based on the then current realities. To meet the needs in 5 or 10
> years and not just just those our interests dictate today.
>
> We can constrain the scope of the PTI Board only to a certain degree.
> The realities of being a functioning  service company providing services
> to 3 operational communities and a user community in an evolving network
> will need to be considered as time goes on when considering the right
> person for the PTI Board.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 25-May-15 14:28, Donna Austin 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
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> 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/20150525/d27d831b/attachment-0001.html>