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

[jczhang at knet.cn]

Dear Professor Mueller,

I appreciate your efforts to put together the fragmented information so we can see the whole picture of community sentiment. About the first conclusion/observation on the support for PTI model, I have a slightly different opinion.    

It is my understanding that when most people are given an option and asked to "oppose" or "favor" it, they will focus on this option, primarily thinking about the reasons that support their attitude. It's a very naturally psychological process. By contrast, when people were given two or more options, their first reaction will be conducting pros/cons analysis to each option and then conclude which one they prefer more. It is a more complicated calculation process. 

It appears that PTI model is something like the first scenario described above, so we are able to see a clear cut between favor/oppose. However, let's imagine if there are two or more options given, maybe there will be no such a clear majority in favor of the PTI model. Methodologically, the one-option approach is more efficient in getting a result (identify the majority), but multi-option approach will be harder because the complexity will make it more difficult to form a clear majority on any specific option (for instance, among the 47 comments, 18 for option #1, 16 for option #2, and 13 for option #3). 

In short, it might not be safe to say the community like PTI model most, because the potentially competing models have been filtered out. We can only safely conclude that in the condition of PTI model is presented, a majority favors it. I think that's why the Chinese Stakeholders' Joint Submission is concerned about the way in which the PTI model is selected, developed and presented to public comments. 

Having said that, I don't believe there is a need to conduct a new round of public comments on the selection of model. I fully understand it is a pretty long and complicated process. The focus should be on accountability mechanism which could hold ICANN and/or PTI from doing bad things. 

Regards

Jian  



 
From: Milton L Mueller
Date: 2015-05-28 07:30
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Support for PTI and PTI board composition in the public comments
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
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150529/2d63a6f7/attachment.html>