<html>
<body>
To be clear, when I say I am giving a "personal" position, it
is to explicitly state that I am not presenting an ALAC or At-Large
consensus-derived position which might be construed if U was silent on
the issue.<br><br>
And separability has never been particularly high on the ALAC priority
list (and here I AM speaking on behalf of the ALAC).<br><br>
Alan <br><br>
At 24/05/2015 04:10 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I'm always a little tickled by
the Orwellian turn of phrasing to mask plain desires. All this
'to'ing-and-fro'ing-on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other-hand is for
nought.<br><br>
Here's an idea. Squint your eyes and re-read all the opinions, including
the 'personal' ones. What comes out is that we favour a PTI Board
of 'insiders' even as we would wish to project a semblance of
'separability'. We desperately want to have our cake and cut our
calories.<br><br>
The contest is to figure out how to make some members - of the PTI Board
- more 'equal' than others! Easy. Make an ICANN employee a
Board member.<br><br>
Tch.<br><br>
-CAS<br><br>
<br>
==============================<br>
Carlton A Samuels<br>
Mobile: 876-818-1799<br>
<font color="#33CC00"><i>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment &
Turnaround</i></font><br>
=============================<br><br>
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>The ICANN Board is similarly composed of people named by the
"community" including the NomCom and we are putting an immense
effort into adding new accountability measures to protect us from them
(forgive my wording but to a large extent, this IS what all this amounts
to. Yes you are saying that this new PTI Board would not need any
accountability?<br><br>
<dd>In my personal opinion, the ICANN Board needs community-selected
members and "new blood" via the NomCom because the Board is
overseeing a MS operation and must weigh and balance the desired and
needs of the various parts of the community. On the other hand, the PTI
Board is, as we have been repeatedly told, overseeing a relatively small
and simple non-profit business and the Board has no such
"balancing" needs.<font color="#888888"><br><br>
<dd>Alan</font><br><br>
<br><br>
<dd>At 24/05/2015 08:49 AM, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Hi,<br><br>
<dd>I would like to put a proposal on the table on the composition of
the<br>
<dd>PTI Board.<br><br>
<dd>Specifically<br><br>
<dd>On 22-May-15 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
<dd>> * On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead
of having<br>
<dd>> a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should have a
majority<br>
<dd>> of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder
modality. e.g 1<br>
<dd>> ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom.<br><br>
<dd>Personally, I propose:<br><br>
<dd>1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by ICANN
Board<br>
<dd>1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its President
or<br>
<dd>Executive Director or their designee<br>
<dd>3 Nomcom Selections<br>
<dd>various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community
discussions<br><br>
<dd>This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI staff has,
but<br>
<dd>would be large enough for some degree of diversity.<br><br>
<dd>While in a formal sense, this would seem to be an outside Board,
given<br>
<dd>that the majority is picked by the ICANN community instead of the
ICANN<br>
<dd>staff, it is an insider board when considered from the perspective
of<br>
<dd>ICANN as a multistakeholder run organization.<br><br>
<dd>It avoids the problem of deciding that one stakeholder type is
more<br>
<dd>appropriate that another, but allows the community on an annual basis
to<br>
<dd>decide which skills and knowledge are most important using a
well<br>
<dd>established ICANN method. The skills and knowledge may vary
over time,<br>
<dd>including considerations such as operational experience,
financial<br>
<dd>skill, international legal knowledge, security capability, root
zone<br>
<dd>operator perspective, community policy perspective, DNS protocol
or<br>
<dd>system design expertise. Those selected by the ICANN Nomcom
could be<br>
<dd>community insiders or outside experts, as decided by each Nomcom<br>
<dd>according to the perceived needs at that time. The set of
considerations<br>
<dd>and needs would be decided on by the ICANN Nomcom in consultation
with<br>
<dd>ICANN Board & Staff, the multistakeholder community and PTI
staff,<br>
<dd>according to Nomcom's normal current and future practices.<br><br>
<dd>In terms of the current discussions, it allows us to defer
certain<br>
<dd>decisions, such as which skill and knowledge categories are most<br>
<dd>appropriate until they can address future understandings. It
avoid<br>
<dd>having the CWG micromanage the future of the PTI Board, yet leaves
it<br>
<dd>under the community's control.<br><br>
<br>
<dd>thanks<br>
<dd>avri<br><br>
<dd>---<br>
<dd>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.<br>
<dd><a href="http://www.avast.com">http://www.avast.com</a><br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br><br>
</dl><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br><br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>