[CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Tue May 26 15:43:40 UTC 2015 

hi,

For the record I was not imagining the PTI doing that, but was imaging
they may have to deal with exception mangement issues and any escalations.

avri


On 26-May-15 10:45, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> In my opinion, having the PTI Board " become the party that will have to decide on (disputed) ccTLD redelegation requests " would be giving it a responsibility that NTIA never had and never fulfilled.  My understanding is that currently the IANA team works with applicable government agencies to resolve such disputes but any ultimate decisions are made by the local government authorities and simply confirmed and documented by the IANA team and approved by the ICANN Board.  Am I correct on that?
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Simon
> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 6:24 PM
> To: avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
>
> 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> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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