[CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

Tue May 26 17:04:58 UTC 2015

Yup!

Alan

-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On May 26, 2015 12:57:16 PM EDT, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>I agree.
>
>The challenge I am having with this discussion is that we have said 
>thatthe composition of the PTI Board should be dictated by the 
>limited/operational functions and duties the Board has to fulfill. 
>Yet, 
>we have not really concretely identified what the scope and specific 
>responsibilities of the PTI Board are vis-a-vis 1) the affiliate and 2)
>
>the IANA functions operator.    (Sidley has addressed 1), but to my 
>knowledge we have not yet addressed 2))
>
>With regard to the IANA functions operator, I would imagine that the 
>Board is accountable to the contractor (ICANN) for its performance and 
>its responsiveness to customers, including addressing performance and 
>other issues as identified by the CSC, the IFR, etc.
>
>Of course, and as much as is possible, issues relating to the
>day-to-day 
>management and performance of the IANA functions should be addressed by
>
>the IANA team, but the overall responsibility for management and 
>performance of IANA functions should surely lie with the PTI Board.
>
>The PTI Board has to be empowered to be able to do its job, both as the
>
>party responsible for the affiliate and as the party responsible for
>the 
>performance of the IANA functions. Doing its job should determine the 
>number/expertise of the members.
>
>Matthew
>
>On 5/26/2015 4:39 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>
>> I don’t think I agree that the ICANN Board “should take much of the 
>> responsibility for PTI's functioning and decision-making”. Obviously,
>
>> as the parent they would have an oversight role but I don’t think
>that 
>> would mean getting into the operational issues and decision making 
>> except as specifically needed.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 25, 2015 10:12 PM
>> *To:* Avri Doria
>> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
>>
>> 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 
>> <mailto: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> 
>> [mailto: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 <mailto:avri at acm.org>; 
>> cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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 
>> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>]
>> > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM
>> > To: Gomes, Chuck; avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>; 
>> cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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>
>> >> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> >> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>
>-- 
>Matthew Shears
>Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>+ 44 (0)771 247 2987
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20150526/ec2e336e/attachment-0001.html>