<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I don't see any reason that we need to change how disputed redelegation requests are currently dealt with, unless we want to make such a change.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The general concept, to my mind, is to give the PTI board the absolute minimum amount of authority and responsibility possible.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Maarten Simon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','maarten.simon@sidn.nl');" target="_blank">maarten.simon@sidn.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Avri,<br>
<br>
You bring up an interesting point there: Œit may have to deal with<br>
[inter]national ccTLD issues¹. That makes me realise that the PTI board<br>
will probably become the party that will have to decide on (disputed)<br>
ccTLD redelegation requests (or will that rest with the PTI staff/ceo<br>
???). That makes the composition, at least for ccTLD¹s, still more<br>
delicate/complicated.<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
Maarten<br>
</font></span><div><div><br>
<br>
<br>
On 25/05/15 22:05, "Avri Doria" <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>Hi,<br>
><br>
>We have talked about it quite a bit.<br>
><br>
>I do not believe the CWG can be completely deterministic on what the PTI<br>
>will and won't do, the exigencies of the situations it finds itself in<br>
>will determine that. It will obviously have to deal with the relities<br>
>of being a company like budget and development plans. It will deal with<br>
>staffing levels. It may face issues of schedules and funding for major<br>
>innovation in equipment and software. It will have to deal with issues<br>
>brought to it through the CSC and other escalation mechanisms. It may<br>
>have to deal with [inter]national ccTLD issues. PTI may even have to<br>
>respond to an RFP put out as a result of of an IFR, and I am sure a PTI<br>
>Board would be involved.<br>
><br>
>This is one reason I suggest the the Nomcom pick 3. To deal with the<br>
>variability of issues that the PTI may face in a considered informed<br>
>manner based on the then current realities. To meet the needs in 5 or 10<br>
>years and not just just those our interests dictate today.<br>
><br>
>We can constrain the scope of the PTI Board only to a certain degree.<br>
>The realities of being a functioning service company providing services<br>
>to 3 operational communities and a user community in an evolving network<br>
>will need to be considered as time goes on when considering the right<br>
>person for the PTI Board.<br>
><br>
>avri<br>
><br>
><br>
>On 25-May-15 14:28, Donna Austin wrote:<br>
>> All<br>
>><br>
>> Has it been decided what the PTI Board would do?<br>
>><br>
>> It seems we should decide on this before we get into composition. The<br>
>>RySG comments have a strong preference for the PTI to be the IANA Dept.<br>
>>as we know it, so business as usual without any undue interference and<br>
>>without the possibility of causing uncertainty for current IANA staff.<br>
>>IANA services are currently satisfactory and we don't want to jeopardise<br>
>>that post transition.<br>
>><br>
>> We have developed other mechanisms to provide for regular monitoring<br>
>>and review, with escalation to deal with non-performance or systemic<br>
>>problems. I don't understand why we need an added, unnecessary in my<br>
>>view, layer of bureaucracy to the PTI Board.<br>
>><br>
>> Donna<br>
>><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>>[mailto:<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck<br>
>> Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM<br>
>> To: Alan Greenberg; <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>; <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition<br>
>><br>
>> Alan,<br>
>><br>
>> Assuming a PTI Board of 5 or larger, two registry related Directors<br>
>>would not be in a preferential position in terms of majority. In my<br>
>>opinion, having a couple Directors who understand the functioning of the<br>
>>IFO in meeting TLD registry needs would increase the chances that the<br>
>>Board would " have the requisite skills and knowledge to do that quickly<br>
>>and effectively".<br>
>><br>
>> Chuck<br>
>><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca');" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>]<br>
>> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM<br>
>> To: Gomes, Chuck; <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>; <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition<br>
>><br>
>> Chuck, the ALAC has not reach consensus as to whether the PTI Board<br>
>>should be MS or not, but we have definitely reach closure on the PTI<br>
>>Board NOT having registries in a preferential position to other<br>
>>stakeholders (if indeed we end up with a MS PTI Board).<br>
>><br>
>> In my personal opinion, the PTI Board will have relatively little to do<br>
>>in a steady-state situation where everything is working well.<br>
>> However, if things are NOT going well, it is the PTI Board that would<br>
>>need to be the first line of recourse in fixing it, and it must have the<br>
>>requisite skills and knowledge to do that quickly and effectively.<br>
>><br>
>> Alan<br>
>><br>
>> At 24/05/2015 10:25 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
>>> Avri,<br>
>>><br>
>>> It is not clear to me that the NomCom's mission and makeup is the<br>
>>>right<br>
>>> fit to appoint PTI Directors, and particularly a majority of them.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I haven't tested this idea with others yet, but I kind of like the<br>
>>>idea<br>
>>> of having one each of the ICANN Directors elected by the ccNSO and<br>
>>>GNSO<br>
>>> serve on the PTI Board. In an ICANN membership structure, the ccNSO<br>
>>>or<br>
>>> GNSO could remove their appointed directors if they were not<br>
>>> accountability.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Chuck<br>
>>><br>
>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>> From: <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>>> [mailto:<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM<br>
>>> To: <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition<br>
>>><br>
>>> 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<br>
>>>> having a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should<br>
>>> 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>
>>> Personally, I propose:<br>
>>><br>
>>> 1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by ICANN<br>
>>> Board<br>
>>> 1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its President<br>
>>>or<br>
>>> Executive Director or their designee<br>
>>> 3 Nomcom Selections<br>
>>> various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community<br>
>>> discussions<br>
>>><br>
>>> This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI staff has,<br>
>>> but 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<br>
>>>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<br>
>>> to decide which skills and knowledge are most important using a well<br>
>>> established ICANN method. The skills and knowledge may vary over<br>
>>>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<br>
>>> considerations and needs would be decided on by the ICANN Nomcom in<br>
>>> consultation with ICANN Board & Staff, the multistakeholder community<br>
>>> and PTI staff, according to Nomcom's normal current and future<br>
>>> 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="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');" target="_blank">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>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');" target="_blank">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>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
>> <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');" target="_blank">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>
>><br>
>><br>
><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="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');" target="_blank">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>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');" target="_blank">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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>