[CWG-Stewardship] Support for PTI and PTI board composition in the public comments

[Kieren McCarthy]

You could have saved yourself a lot of time by reading my article yesterday: 




http://m.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/26/iana_icann_latest/





One key element from that: the actual numbers (rather than general sense and who) are not very useful because the sample is too small - the level of response is not there to draw conclusions beyond areas of agreement or disagreement.




Kieren



-
[sent through phone]

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> I wanted to get a better sense of how  strongly or weakly the public comments came out on the basic PTI model, and also to get a sense of community sentiment on composition of the board.
> So I went through the comments and came up with the following. I think this information will be useful as we enter into the "intensive work week."
> Public comments on support for PTI model
> ====================================
> FAVOR: 31
> OPPOSE: 10
> Not explicitly addressed: 6
> *        Of those who OPPOSE PTI in their comments, 4 wanted more separation, 2 wanted no separation, and 4 saw no point to PTI-style separation.
> *        Only two entities, AuDA and SIDN, expressed opposition to PTI and preferred to keep IANA completely within ICANN. ALAC expressed a preference for keeping it in ICANN but saw PTI as an acceptable compromise.
> *        Those who opposed PTI because it was not true separation were DotConnect Africa, Govt of India, Govt of Italy, and the research Center at Natl Law U of Delhi
> Based on this, I would say we can move ahead confidently with PTI. Those who don't want to create a separate entity at all are a very small minority. Opposition comes from those who either think that the separation of IANA does not go far enough, or those who think that such separation does not accomplish anything. The latter comments tended to emphasize how PTI would be under ICANN's control anyway. Thus, if anything, the comments show that most of the opposition or concerns about the model are wishing for a stronger separation. PTI as a compromise middle ground seems to work - it is difficult to conceive of a model that would add support given the current distribution of opinion.
> Public Comments on PTI board composition
> =====================================
> Favors ICANN control: 13
> Favors an independent or mixed board: 7
> Asks to clarify role of board: 3
> Not explicitly addressed: 25
> Unfortunately most comments did not explicitly address the composition or control of the board. Among the 20 who did, 13 favor ICANN control of it. Those commentators tend to be from business interests from the US and registries and registrars in the domain name industry. Civil society interests and developing countries are solidly for a more independent PTI board. A couple of commentators called for a mixed board, with a majority of ICANN appointees and the rest independents. which may be a good compromise. The fact that only a minority of the comments directly address the question, however, shows that the issue is not as "ripe" as it could be, and that the community as a whole is not settled on this issue in my opinion.
> Milton L Mueller
> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150527/2d15d192/attachment.html>