[CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

[Martin Boyle]

Milton,

It all depends on the role.  I would be unhappy if a ccNSO director (or a GNSO one for that matter) thought that part of their role was to talk about (say) a redelegation of .uk.  We are back to the problem of having well-meaning and worthy people in a position.  That "ccTLD operators and boards are often (though not always) chosen by a local MS community" does not mean that they should be able to judge - yet another judge - in an already delicate relationship.

That's not that I do not support your argument - if we have to have cross membership of the two Boards, then Chuck's proposal is sensible (so long as they cannot opine on the merits of a delegation/redelegation, only on whether due process has been followed and documented).  It is just that they at least will have a reasonable idea of forward planning and resourcing and requirements for the service.

I fear we are drifting from a management board role - a board that will fight PTI's corner with the ICANN Board for resources and ensure that deterioration of service quality is dealt with quickly (even without prompting from the CSC).

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: 25 May 2015 17:39
To: Alan Greenberg; avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

Alan:
Chuck said (and I agree) that two of the board members should be selected by the ccNSO and gNSO. 
It is obviously a mistake to refer to the GNSO as "registries." Registries are one of only 4 stakeholder groups there. 
As for ccNSO, given the fact that PTI manages the IANA, which has a particularly sensitive relationship to ccTLDs, I am having trouble understanding ALAC's objection to letting the ccNSO pick a director, also. Indeed, if I were a ccTLD operator, I would object strenuously to any solution that did NOT involve such a right. One could also argue that ccTLD operators and boards are often (though not always) chosen by a local MS community.

I think ALAC needs to reconsider its position. It seems poorly thought out.

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> 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).
> 
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship