<html>
<body>
Greg, I have to disagree.<br><br>
My impression was that the ICANN Board is trying to lessen the
operational aspects of what it does. Why would it want to manage PTI at
that level when it is not even doing that now?<br><br>
Or are you proposing that ICANN staff act as puppet masters telling the
PTI Board what to do?<br><br>
Either way, that is not a Board that I would want to sit, on bearing the
fiduciary duty for PTI, but none of the authority.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 25/05/2015 10:12 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Avri,<br><br>
I think that so long as PTI is controlled by ICANN, ICANN and the ICANN
Board can and should take much of the responsibility for PTI's
functioning and decision-making, rather than the PTI Board. As
such, the PTI Board just needs to act as a conduit for decisions made by
its "parent," ICANN. If ICANN no longer controls PTI,
things will need to change, but I suggest that now is not the time to
make that change.<br><br>
Greg<br><br>
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Avri Doria
<<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Hi,<br><br>
<dd>We have talked about it quite a bit.<br><br>
<dd>I do not believe the CWG can be completely deterministic on what the
PTI<br>
<dd>will and won't do, the exigencies of the situations it finds itself
in<br>
<dd>will determine that. It will obviously have to deal with the
relities<br>
<dd>of being a company like budget and development plans. It will
deal with<br>
<dd>staffing levels. It may face issues of schedules and funding
for major<br>
<dd>innovation in equipment and software. It will have to deal with
issues<br>
<dd>brought to it through the CSC and other escalation mechanisms. It
may<br>
<dd>have to deal with [inter]national ccTLD issues. PTI may even have
to<br>
<dd>respond to an RFP put out as a result of of an IFR, and I am sure a
PTI<br>
<dd>Board would be involved.<br><br>
<dd>This is one reason I suggest the the Nomcom pick 3. To deal
with the<br>
<dd>variability of issues that the PTI may face in a considered
informed<br>
<dd>manner based on the then current realities. To meet the needs in 5 or
10<br>
<dd>years and not just just those our interests dictate today.<br><br>
<dd>We can constrain the scope of the PTI Board only to a certain
degree.<br>
<dd>The realities of being a functioning service company providing
services<br>
<dd>to 3 operational communities and a user community in an evolving
network<br>
<dd>will need to be considered as time goes on when considering the
right<br>
<dd>person for the PTI Board.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<dd>avri<br>
</font><br><br>
<dd>On 25-May-15 14:28, Donna Austin wrote:<br>
<dd>> All<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Has it been decided what the PTI Board would do?<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> It seems we should decide on this before we get into
composition. The RySG comments have a strong preference for the PTI to be
the IANA Dept. as we know it, so business as usual without any undue
interference and without the possibility of causing uncertainty for
current IANA staff. IANA services are currently satisfactory and we don't
want to jeopardise that post transition.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> We have developed other mechanisms to provide for regular
monitoring and review, with escalation to deal with non-performance or
systemic problems. I don't understand why we need an added, unnecessary
in my view, layer of bureaucracy to the PTI Board.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Donna<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> -----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>> From:
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Gomes,
Chuck<br>
<dd>> Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM<br>
<dd>> To: Alan Greenberg;
<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>;
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Alan,<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Assuming a PTI Board of 5 or larger, two registry related
Directors would not be in a preferential position in terms of
majority. In my opinion, having a couple Directors who understand
the functioning of the IFO in meeting TLD registry needs would increase
the chances that the Board would " have the requisite skills and
knowledge to do that quickly and effectively".<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Chuck<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> -----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>> From: Alan Greenberg
[<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" eudora="autourl">
mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>]<br>
<dd>> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM<br>
<dd>> To: Gomes, Chuck;
<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>;
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Chuck, the ALAC has not reach consensus as to whether the PTI
Board should be MS or not, but we have definitely reach closure on the
PTI Board NOT having registries in a preferential position to other
stakeholders (if indeed we end up with a MS PTI Board).<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> In my personal opinion, the PTI Board will have relatively
little to do in a steady-state situation where everything is working
well.<br>
<dd>> However, if things are NOT going well, it is the PTI Board that
would need to be the first line of recourse in fixing it, and it must
have the requisite skills and knowledge to do that quickly and
effectively.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Alan<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> At 24/05/2015 10:25 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
<dd>>> Avri,<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> It is not clear to me that the NomCom's mission and makeup
is the right<br>
<dd>>> fit to appoint PTI Directors, and particularly a majority of
them.<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> I haven't tested this idea with others yet, but I kind of
like the idea<br>
<dd>>> of having one each of the ICANN Directors elected by the
ccNSO and GNSO<br>
<dd>>> serve on the PTI Board. In an ICANN membership
structure, the ccNSO or<br>
<dd>>> GNSO could remove their appointed directors if they were
not<br>
<dd>>> accountability.<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> Chuck<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>>> From:
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>>>
[<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Avri
Doria<br>
<dd>>> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM<br>
<dd>>> To:
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> Hi,<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> I would like to put a proposal on the table on the
composition of the<br>
<dd>>> PTI Board.<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> Specifically<br>
<dd>>><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<br>
<dd>>>> having a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it
should<br>
<dd>>> 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>
<dd>>> Personally, I propose:<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> 1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by
ICANN<br>
<dd>>> 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<br>
<dd>>> discussions<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI
staff has,<br>
<dd>>> but would be large enough for some degree of diversity.<br>
<dd>>><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>
<dd>>><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<br>
<dd>>> to 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<br>
<dd>>> considerations and needs would be decided on by the ICANN
Nomcom in<br>
<dd>>> consultation with ICANN Board & Staff, the
multistakeholder community<br>
<dd>>> and PTI staff, according to Nomcom's normal current and
future<br>
<dd>>> practices.<br>
<dd>>><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>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> thanks<br>
<dd>>> avri<br>
<dd>>><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>
<dd>>><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>
<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>
<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>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br><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>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>