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

[Alan Greenberg]

Thanks Milton. Useful summary.  Alan

At 27/05/2015 07:30 PM, Milton L Mueller 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/>http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>Internet Governance Project
><http://internetgovernance.org/>http://internetgovernance.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20150527/44a6e5c2/attachment-0001.html>