<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<small><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">I agree.</font><br>
<br>
</small><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><small>The
challenge I am having with this discussion is that</small> <small>we
have said that</small><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> the
composition of the PTI Board should be dictated by the
limited/operational functions and duties the Board has to
fulfill.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> Yet, we have not really
</span>concretely identified what the scope and specific
responsibilities of the PTI Board are vis-a-vis 1) the affiliate
and 2) the IANA functions operator.<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> (Sidley has addressed 1), but to
my knowledge we have not yet addressed 2)) </span></span></font><br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><span style="font-size:
11pt;"> </span></font><br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><span style="font-size:
11pt;"> With regard to the IANA functions operator, I would
imagine that the Board is accountable to the contractor (ICANN)
for its performance and its responsiveness to customers,
including addressing performance and other issues as identified
by the CSC, the IFR, etc.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></font><br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><span style="font-size:
11pt;"> </span></font><br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><span style="font-size:
11pt;"> Of course, and as much as is possible, issues relating
to the day-to-day management and performance of the IANA
functions should be addressed by the IANA team, but the overall
responsibility for management and performance of IANA functions
should surely lie with the PTI Board.<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"></span></span></font><br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><span style="font-size:
11pt;"> </span></font><br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><span style="font-size:
11pt;"> The PTI Board has to be empowered to be able to do its
job, both as the party responsible for the affiliate and as the
party responsible for the performance of the IANA functions.</span>
<small>Doing its job should determine the number/expertise of the
members.</small></font><small><br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">Matthew</font><br>
</small><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/26/2015 4:39 PM, Gomes, Chuck
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E495DF1D1@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
don’t think I agree that the ICANN Board “</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">should
take much of the responsibility for PTI's functioning and
decision-making</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">”.
Obviously, as the parent they would have an oversight role
but I don’t think that would mean getting into the
operational issues and decision making except as
specifically needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 25, 2015 10:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Avri Doria<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Avri,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Greg<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Avri
Doria <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<span style="color:#888888"><br>
<span class="hoenzb">avri</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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 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>
><br>
> 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>
><br>
> Donna<br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">
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 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>
><br>
> Chuck<br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>]<br>
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM<br>
> To: Gomes, Chuck; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">
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 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>
><br>
> In my personal opinion, the PTI Board will have
relatively little to do 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 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>
><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 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 idea<br>
>> of having one each of the ICANN Directors
elected by the ccNSO and GNSO<br>
>> serve on the PTI Board. In an ICANN
membership structure, the ccNSO or<br>
>> GNSO could remove their appointed directors
if they were not<br>
>> accountability.<br>
>><br>
>> Chuck<br>
>><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>> [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>
>> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM<br>
>> To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">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 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 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 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank">http://www.avast.com</a><br>
>><br>
>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.avast.com"
target="_blank">http://www.avast.com</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987</pre>
</body>
</html>