<p dir="ltr">Hi Avri,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Thanks for the attempt, I don't think the noncom option would work especially as they would be selecting within stakeholders that are more than 3. I would have love to have an MS PTI board, but the possibility of it not becoming a large one may not be realistic.<br>
I see 3 options going forward:</p>
<p dir="ltr">- PTI gets filled with a committee of ICANN board and IANA most senior staff</p>
<p dir="ltr">- PTI gets filled with 2 ICANN global leaders, 1 ICANN board liaison and IANA most senior staff</p>
<p dir="ltr">- We ask legal if it's compulsory to have a for PTI and if it isn't then the most senior IANA staff should just manage PTI and report to ICANN board/community</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 24 May 2015 13:50, "Avri Doria" <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
I would like to put a proposal on the table on the composition of the<br>
PTI Board.<br>
<br>
Specifically<br>
<br>
On 22-May-15 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
> * On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead of having<br>
> a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should have a majority<br>
> of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder modality. e.g 1<br>
> ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom.<br>
<br>
Personally, I propose:<br>
<br>
1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by ICANN Board<br>
1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its President or<br>
Executive Director or their designee<br>
3 Nomcom Selections<br>
various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community discussions<br>
<br>
This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI staff has, but<br>
would be large enough for some degree of diversity.<br>
<br>
While in a formal sense, this would seem to be an outside Board, given<br>
that the majority is picked by the ICANN community instead of the ICANN<br>
staff, it is an insider board when considered from the perspective of<br>
ICANN as a multistakeholder run organization.<br>
<br>
It avoids the problem of deciding that one stakeholder type is more<br>
appropriate that another, but allows the community on an annual basis to<br>
decide which skills and knowledge are most important using a well<br>
established ICANN method. The skills and knowledge may vary over time,<br>
including considerations such as operational experience, financial<br>
skill, international legal knowledge, security capability, root zone<br>
operator perspective, community policy perspective, DNS protocol or<br>
system design expertise. Those selected by the ICANN Nomcom could be<br>
community insiders or outside experts, as decided by each Nomcom<br>
according to the perceived needs at that time. The set of considerations<br>
and needs would be decided on by the ICANN Nomcom in consultation with<br>
ICANN Board & Staff, the multistakeholder community and PTI staff,<br>
according to Nomcom's normal current and future practices.<br>
<br>
In terms of the current discussions, it allows us to defer certain<br>
decisions, such as which skill and knowledge categories are most<br>
appropriate until they can address future understandings. It avoid<br>
having the CWG micromanage the future of the PTI Board, yet leaves it<br>
under the community's control.<br>
<br>
<br>
thanks<br>
avri<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank">http://www.avast.com</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</blockquote></div>