[CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

Tue May 26 18:39:37 UTC 2015

The affiliate = IFO.

I don't see the Board involved in managing PTO.  They would of course be responsible for directing PTO senior management as needed but that should not require the Board to be involved in day-to-day management.

Chuck

From: Matthew Shears [mailto:mshears at cdt.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 12:57 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; Avri Doria
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

I agree.

The challenge I am having with this discussion is that we have said that the 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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150526/583fa429/attachment-0001.html>