[CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

Tue May 26 18:00:57 UTC 2015

I don’t see PTI Directors as representing particular segments of the community but rather being responsible of ensuring that PTI provides services as required in its agreement with ICANN including abiding by applicable policies.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 12:44 PM
To: Mwendwa Kivuva; Kieren McCarthy
Cc: Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

And what is the justification other than the elegance of the form, Kieren?  I’m obviously looking at a different roles & responsibilities for the PTI Board than you are.

Martin

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mwendwa Kivuva
Sent: 25 May 2015 18:03
To: Kieren McCarthy
Cc: Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

What about a representative for the end user? Say a CS representative?
On May 25, 2015 4:19 PM, "Kieren McCarthy" <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com>> wrote:
In this whole process, I had always assumed:

* 1 Board member from names community
* 1 Board member from numbers community
* 1 Board member from protocols community
* 1 IANA staff member
* 1 ICANN Board member

Let each group decide on its representative.

Simple, balanced, effective.

I think the most important thing would be to have as little politics and process as possible.

Kieren

-
[sent through phone]

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20150526/7d0bb884/attachment-0001.html>