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. The general concept, to my mind, is to give the PTI board the absolute minimum amount of authority and responsibility possible. Greg On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','maarten.simon@sidn.nl');>> wrote:
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@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@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@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca');>] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@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@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@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@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@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@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship