[CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

Tue May 26 03:37:37 UTC 2015

I don't see any reason that we need to change how disputed redelegation
requests are currently dealt with, unless we want to make such a change.

The general concept, to my mind, is to give the PTI board the absolute
minimum amount of authority and responsibility possible.

Greg

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon at sidn.nl
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','maarten.simon at sidn.nl');>> wrote:

> Hi Avri,
>
> You bring up an interesting point there: Œit may have to deal with
> [inter]national ccTLD issues¹. That makes me realise that the PTI board
> will probably become the party that will have to decide on (disputed)
> ccTLD redelegation requests (or will that rest with the PTI staff/ceo
> ???). That makes the composition, at least for ccTLD¹s, still more
> delicate/complicated.
>
> Maarten
>
>
>
> On 25/05/15 22:05, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');>
> >>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri at acm.org');>; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca');>]
> >> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM
> >> To: Gomes, Chuck; avri at acm.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri at acm.org');>; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');>
> >>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> >>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> >> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20150525/141bf007/attachment-0001.html>