[CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition

Tue May 26 09:00:06 UTC 2015

I agree with Martin and Greg that PTI needs a small board with a very
limited role. The main activity I have missed in the discussion is that
the PTI board should make sure that PTI executes the agreement.

On 26/05/15 10:37, "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:

>I agree with Maarten here:  I think the only thing that a PTI Board could
>or should do is to ensure that staff have followed due process and
>documented their decisions.  The decision is being made in country using
>local processes (we discussed this long and hard for the principles,
>remember?  "7.ii. For ccTLDs - Respect national laws and processes, as
>well as any applicable consensus ICANN policies and IETF technical
>standards").
>
>I fail to see how three (why three?) NomCom appointees will help.
>
>For escalation issue, I think that the Board will need to respond to the
>(technical) concerns of the CSC and will need to respond to the ICANN
>Board on issues it has referred to it by the ICANN Board from the IFR.
>Again, what is the role of the NomCom appointees?
>
>For an RfP, I think we agreed (certainly my understanding) that this
>would happen in the case of the PTI failing to conform to contract (and
>via the special review), or failing to respond to issues identified as
>needing to be addressed by the periodic IFR.  Why would the PTI be
>involved here - it is failing and we shouldn't be giving it an inside
>track.
>
>MB
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Simon
>Sent: 25 May 2015 23:24
>To: avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
>
>Hi Avri,
>
>You bring up an interesting point there: Œit may have to deal with
>[inter]national ccTLD issues¹. That makes me realise that the PTI board
>will probably become the party that will have to decide on (disputed)
>ccTLD redelegation requests (or will that rest with the PTI staff/ceo
>???). That makes the composition, at least for ccTLD¹s, still more
>delicate/complicated.
>
>Maarten
>
>
>
>On 25/05/15 22:05, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>We have talked about it quite a bit.
>>
>>I do not believe the CWG can be completely deterministic on what the
>>PTI will and won't do, the exigencies of the situations it finds itself
>>in
>>will determine that.    It will obviously have to deal with the relities
>>of being a company like budget and development plans.  It will deal
>>with staffing levels.  It may face issues of schedules and funding for
>>major innovation in equipment and software.  It will have to deal with
>>issues brought to it through the CSC and other escalation mechanisms.
>>It may have to deal with [inter]national ccTLD issues. PTI may even
>>have to respond to an RFP put out as a result of of an IFR, and I am
>>sure a PTI Board would be involved.
>>
>>This is one reason I suggest the the Nomcom pick 3.  To deal with the
>>variability of issues that the PTI may face in a considered informed
>>manner based on the then current realities. To meet the needs in 5 or
>>10 years and not just just those our interests dictate today.
>>
>>We can constrain the scope of the PTI Board only to a certain degree.
>>The realities of being a functioning  service company providing
>>services to 3 operational communities and a user community in an
>>evolving network will need to be considered as time goes on when
>>considering the right person for the PTI Board.
>>
>>avri
>>
>>
>>On 25-May-15 14:28, Donna Austin wrote:
>>> All
>>>
>>> Has it been decided what the PTI Board would do?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Donna
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>>>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
>>> Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM
>>> To: Alan Greenberg; avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
>>>
>>> Alan,
>>>
>>> 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".
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM
>>> To: Gomes, Chuck; avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
>>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>> In my personal opinion, the PTI Board will have relatively little to
>>>do in a steady-state situation where everything is working well.
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> At 24/05/2015 10:25 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>>> Avri,
>>>>
>>>> It is not clear to me that the NomCom's mission and makeup is the
>>>>right  fit to appoint PTI Directors, and particularly a majority of
>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't tested this idea with others yet, but I kind of like the
>>>>idea  of having one each of the ICANN Directors elected by the ccNSO
>>>>and GNSO  serve on the PTI Board.  In an ICANN membership structure,
>>>>the ccNSO or  GNSO could remove their appointed directors if they
>>>>were not  accountability.
>>>>
>>>> Chuck
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>>>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM
>>>> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to put a proposal on the table on the composition of
>>>> the PTI Board.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically
>>>>
>>>> On 22-May-15 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>>> * On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead of
>>>>> having a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should
>>>> have a majority
>>>>> of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder modality.   e.g 1
>>>>> ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom.
>>>> Personally, I propose:
>>>>
>>>> 1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by ICANN
>>>>Board
>>>> 1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its President
>>>>or  Executive Director or their designee
>>>> 3 Nomcom Selections
>>>> various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community
>>>>discussions
>>>>
>>>> This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI staff has,
>>>> but would be large enough for some degree of diversity.
>>>>
>>>> While in a formal sense, this would seem to be an outside Board,
>>>>given  that the majority is picked by the ICANN community instead of
>>>>the ICANN  staff, it is an insider board when considered from the
>>>>perspective of  ICANN as a multistakeholder run organization.
>>>>
>>>> It avoids the problem of deciding that one stakeholder type is more
>>>>appropriate that another, but allows the community on an annual basis
>>>>to decide which skills and knowledge are most important using a well
>>>>established ICANN method.  The skills and knowledge may vary over
>>>>time,  including considerations such as operational experience,
>>>>financial  skill, international legal knowledge,  security
>>>>capability, root zone  operator perspective, community policy
>>>>perspective, DNS protocol or  system design expertise.  Those
>>>>selected by the ICANN Nomcom could be  community insiders or outside
>>>>experts, as decided by each Nomcom  according to the perceived needs
>>>>at that time. The set of  considerations and needs would be decided
>>>>on by the ICANN Nomcom in  consultation with ICANN Board & Staff, the
>>>>multistakeholder community  and PTI staff, according to Nomcom's
>>>>normal current and future  practices.
>>>>
>>>> In terms of the current discussions, it allows us to defer certain
>>>> decisions, such as which skill and knowledge categories are most
>>>> appropriate until they can address future understandings.  It avoid
>>>> having the CWG micromanage the future of the PTI Board, yet leaves
>>>> it under the community's control.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> http://www.avast.com
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>---
>>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>http://www.avast.com
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship