- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

FW: CWG Comments
by Grace Abuhamad May 26, 2015

May 26, 2015

Forwarding at the request of Eberhard Lisse On 5/21/15, 9:50 AM, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <el(a)lisse.na> wrote: > >Dear Grace, > >since I have in my comment to the CWG 2nd Draft Proposal quoted from >the email below posted to the ISTACC list, the archive of which >currently seems to be not open to the public (though this is being >looked into), I would request that this email be posted onto the >main public CWG list on my behalf. > > >greetings, el > > > >Message received 2015-05-08 15:26:44: > >> DATE: 2015-05-08 15:26:44 >> FROM: Paul M Kane <Paul.Kane(a)icb.co.uk> >> TO: Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca>,istacc(a)icann.org >><istacc(a)icann.org> >> SUBJECT: Re: [ISTACC] IANA workflow >> MAILBOX: el(a)windhoek.omadhina.co.na/INBOX.mbox >> >> Thanks Byron >> >> It was agreed that the SLA that IANA has with NTIA does not >> capture the process post NTIA's involvement. >> Further, when IANA were negotiating with NTIA a significantly more >> professional and prescriptive SLA was proposed by IANA but >> apparently NTIA did not want to be too specific as it clarified >> the roles of each party and their performance in too much detail. >> Consequently a vague SLA was agreed but with NTIA potentially out >> of the picture we can have that professional SLE now. >> >> Consequently, extensive review of current practice has been >> undertaken using 565 data points from information published by >> IANA and also interactions with Registry Managers to ascertain >> actual performance (which is quite good and uses a modified eIANA >> software platform). Using best practice processes we captured the >> performance of the current work flow in the following: >> >>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statistica >>l-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426003475000&api=v2 >> >> This was encapsulated in a simplified flow chart >> >>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/IANA%20update%2 >>0Flowchart%20DRAFT.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426003491000&api=v2 >> >> We were then advised that the workflow did not capture those >> Registries that interact via fax or telephone - so we asked IANA >> to provide the work flow for those scenarios, which they said they >> would do, then we hit ICANN legal apparently citing the need to >> obtain NTIA approval prior to releasing the workflow diagrams to >> us. Which is where we are now. >> >> I genuinely believe IANA staff are trying to provide the >> information (true IANA needs to invest in monitoring the >> performance of their systems - but that is trivial, two days of a >> competent programmers time would provide the required matrices) >> >> Elise has kindly agreed to have another call, but we agreed to >> wait until the current detailed practice workflow documents are >> available to the group... even if that requires specific NDAs >> with the Design Team members. >> >> The really frustrating thing we just want a professional and fit >> for purpose SLE (that is standard practice in today's environment) >> and are being "fobbed off" with "national security" issues - and >> if ICANN requires a classified meeting a number of the Design Team >> members are cleared for Classified national security discussions >> to the category "Top Secret". >> >> Please note: we are not proposing the IANA SLE requires the same >> performance standards that ICANN expects from gTLD Registries but >> rather an SLE that captures the current detailed workflow and the >> actual performance delivered by IANA. >> >> Hope this is helpful >> >> Best >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> .... >> >> Byron Holland wrote: >> > Hi Paul, >> > I followed up on the IANA workflow issue you mentioned on the >> > last call. >> > Emergency processes are published in the ICANN proposal for the >> > IANA functions contract. >> > >>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_volume_i_elecsub_pa >>rt_1_of_3.pdf >> > It is on pages 117 and 118 of Volume 1. The easiest way to find >> > it is to search on 24x7. >> > They indicated that on April 7, 2015, a request was made for >> > ICANN to provide â€œall work-flow process documents with >> > accompanying performance statistics for each stage of the IANA >> > Root Zone Management functionâ€?. They have been working on >> > compiling and reviewing that documentation to fulfill the >> > request. >> > In the meantime, it was suggested that this is a good place to >> > start. Please see pages 31 and 113. >> > >>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_volume_i_elecsub_pa >>rt_1_of_3.pdf >> > I have been assured that Elise and members of her team are >> > available to participate in CWG team discussions if called upon. >> > Hope that helps, >> > Byron >> > ** >> > ** >> > *Byron Holland*, President & CEO >> > Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) >> > Twitter: @cira001 <mailto:@cira001> >> > Trends, Commentary, Perspective. Stay tuned to cirablog.ca >> > <http://www.cirablog.ca/> >> > www.cira.ca <http://www.cira.ca/> >> > BSME_2015colour >> _______________________________________________ >> Istacc mailing list >> Istacc(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/istacc

1 0

FW: More on .int
by Grace Abuhamad May 26, 2015

May 26, 2015

Forwarding at the request of Richard Hill. On 5/24/15, 12:39 PM, "Richard Hill" <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> wrote: >Please forward to CWG-Stewardship > >Thank you, >Richard >================================= > >I note that Avri asks: "Do we have any idea of what the .int 2nd level >registrants [of .int] want?" > >See her post at: > > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003207.html > > >As I've already pointed out, I think that E.190 captures what the >registrants want, see: > > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003141.html > >Best, >Richard >

1 0

Agenda for 26 May meeting at 17:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad May 26, 2015

May 26, 2015

Dear all, Here is the agenda for today¹s (26 May) meeting: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Public comment a. Mechanics & process b. Implications for Design Teams/ CWG (whole) 3. Punch List a. Review b. Other open issues for DTs? 4. Forward planning (including high intensity) 5. Instructions to Sidley a. Costs to date b. Scope of work c. Role for Sidley in BA? d. Future role? Implementation? 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
by Alan Greenberg May 26, 2015

May 26, 2015

Greg, I have to disagree. 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? Or are you proposing that ICANN staff act as puppet masters telling the PTI Board what to do? 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. Alan At 25/05/2015 10:12 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >Avri, > >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. > >Greg > >On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Avri Doria ><<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri(a)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: > <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > > Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM > > To: Alan Greenberg; <mailto:avri@acm.org>avri(a)acm.org; > <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)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@mcgill.ca] > > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM > > To: Gomes, Chuck; <mailto:avri@acm.org>avri(a)acm.org; > <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)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: > <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org > >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM > >> To: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)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>http://www.avast.com > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list > >> <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >> _______________________________________________ > >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list > >> <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > _______________________________________________ > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)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>http://www.avast.com > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

3 2

For your review: public comment summary and review tool
by Grace Abuhamad May 26, 2015

May 26, 2015

Dear all, Staff has compiled a summary overview of the pubic comment submissions and filled out a public comment review tool, noting responses and specific action items for the CWG-Stewardship to consider. Please review these documents and suggest edits based on your assessment of the public comment submissions. The proposed actions for the CWG-Stewardship are highlighted in blue in the response column (far right). The Public Comment Review Tool is very long and may be difficult to read. This is due to staff¹s approach in thorough and detailed review. We will provide a more digestible, action-focused, version of this tool for Tuesday¹s meeting. We are providing the long version to you today to demonstrate our work progress and preparation for next week¹s high-intensity meetings. While the Public Comment Review Tool is very detailed, the summary overview is presented in a presentation format and focuses more on the ³bigger picture². Depending on your review-style, you may be inclined to start with one or the other document. Also, please note that these documents incorporate all (44) submissions received up until the deadline on 20 May at 23:59 UTC. As of 22 May at 16:00 UTC, there are (7) late submissions. These submissions have not yet been incorporated in this document but will be added in time for the high-intensity meetings (along with the submissions received based on the extension for those who are reliant on translations). As a reminder, Brenda kindly pulled all the submissions together on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/o5A0Aw. You can download all the files at once (like a zip file) by clicking on the ³download all² button at the bottom left side of the macro. Have a good (submission-reading-filled) weekend, Grace

8 10

DT-M Punch List Input
by Gomes, Chuck May 25, 2015

May 25, 2015

Please find the DT-M input for punch list items 21-23. I want to also thank DT-C for their contributions to this. Chuck “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain
by Alan Greenberg May 25, 2015

May 25, 2015

At 21/05/2015 03:07 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >.... > >The idea that being an "interested party" should be a qualification >for participating in a decision causes even greater concern. If >anything, this could be deemed a disqualification, since a party >with an interest in the outcome will tend to seek an outcome >beneficial to that interest, not the community's interest or the >public interest. For a variety of reasons, we do not operate that >way -- being an interested party does not qualify one from >participating in a multistakeholder process relating to that >interest. This makes it even more important that a truly inclusive >multistakeholder group be assembled to consider and resolve issues >regardless of whose ox is being gored, to balance the self-interest >of the interested parties and to assure the integrity of the process. > >Greg Greg, I support that completely. And yet, we have continually been told that as the direct customers, only registries (perhaps with token other involvement) need to be involved in a all sorts of decisions related to IANA. Alan

10 19

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
by Alan Greenberg May 25, 2015

May 25, 2015

However, my recollection is that if we select the LLC option, a board is NOT a requirement (but could be an option). Alan At 25/05/2015 12:36 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: >Seun, > >It's a basic and unwaivable element of a corporation (non-profit or >for profit) to have a board of directors. The relevant section of >the California Corporate Code reads (emphasis added): > > >5210. Each corporation shall have a board of directors. Subject to >the provisions of this part and any limitations in the articles or >bylaws relating to action required to be approved by the members >(Section 5034), or by a majority of all members (Section 5033), the >activities and affairs of a corporation shall be conducted and all >corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the >board. The board may delegate the management of the activities of the >corporation to any person or persons, management company, or >committee however composed, provided that the activities and affairs >of the corporation shall be managed and all corporate powers shall be >exercised under the ultimate direction of the board. > >On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Seun Ojedeji ><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >sent from Google nexus 4 >kindly excuse brevity and typos. >On 24 May 2015 15:53, "Seun Ojedeji" ><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Avri, > > > > 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. > > I see 3 options going forward: > > > > - PTI gets filled with a committee of ICANN board and IANA most > senior staff > > > > - PTI gets filled with 2 ICANN global leaders, 1 ICANN board > liaison and IANA most senior staff > > > > - 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 > > >SO: >Edit: > >- We ask legal if it's compulsory to have a *board* for PTI and if >it isn't then the most senior IANA staff should just manage PTI and >report to ICANN board/community > >Cheers! > > > Regards > > sent from Google nexus 4 > > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > > > On 24 May 2015 13:50, "Avri Doria" > <<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > >> > >> 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>http://www.avast.com > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list > >> <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
by Alan Greenberg May 24, 2015

May 24, 2015

To be clear, when I say I am giving a "personal" position, it is to explicitly state that I am not presenting an ALAC or At-Large consensus-derived position which might be construed if U was silent on the issue. And separability has never been particularly high on the ALAC priority list (and here I AM speaking on behalf of the ALAC). Alan At 24/05/2015 04:10 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >I'm always a little tickled by the Orwellian turn of phrasing to >mask plain desires. All this >'to'ing-and-fro'ing-on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other-hand is for nought. > >Here's an idea. Squint your eyes and re-read all the opinions, >including the 'personal' ones. What comes out is that we favour a >PTI Board of 'insiders' even as we would wish to project a semblance >of 'separability'. We desperately want to have our cake and cut our calories. > >The contest is to figure out how to make some members - of the PTI >Board - more 'equal' than others! Easy. Make an ICANN employee a >Board member. > >Tch. > >-CAS > > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > >On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >The ICANN Board is similarly composed of people named by the >"community" including the NomCom and we are putting an immense >effort into adding new accountability measures to protect us from >them (forgive my wording but to a large extent, this IS what all >this amounts to. Yes you are saying that this new PTI Board would >not need any accountability? > >In my personal opinion, the ICANN Board needs community-selected >members and "new blood" via the NomCom because the Board is >overseeing a MS operation and must weigh and balance the desired and >needs of the various parts of the community. On the other hand, the >PTI Board is, as we have been repeatedly told, overseeing a >relatively small and simple non-profit business and the Board has no >such "balancing" needs. > >Alan > > > >At 24/05/2015 08:49 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >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>http://www.avast.com > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >

1 0

Agenda for May 26 Call
by Jonathan Robinson May 22, 2015

May 22, 2015

Holly, For a variety of reasons we have not yet formulated the agenda for the call on Tuesday 26th. Normally, we prepare the detail of the agenda the day before. However, since Monday 25th is a holiday for many, we will only prepare the detail agenda early on Tuesday. In any event, we do not need to review the term sheet in detail on that call and therefore there is no need for Josh to modify his schedule. Thank-you for your consideration of this. Best wishes, Jonathan From: Gregory, Holly [mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com] Sent: 22 May 2015 01:26 To: Client Committee List for CWG Subject: [client com] Agenda for May 26 Call Dear Client Committee, We look forward to the session on Tuesday, May 26th. We would appreciate any information you can provide about the agenda. In particular it would be helpful to know if you intend to discuss the term sheet on this call since it will require some significant change to travel plans to enable Josh Hofheimer -- who took the laboring oar on the term sheet -- to be available for that discussion. Kind regards, Holly Holly J. Gregory Sidley Sent with Good (www.good.com) **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

1 0