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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
In this whole process, I had always assumed: * 1 Board member from names community * 1 Board member from numbers community * 1 Board member from protocols community * 1 IANA staff member * 1 ICANN Board member Let each group decide on its representative. Simple, balanced, effective. I think the most important thing would be to have as little politics and process as possible. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
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; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Without wading into this discussion just going to make the point with the exception of the CEO its extremely rare to have staff members on the board of their employer and would usually be advised against as best practice in my knowledge. Have we received any legal advice on possible ‘restrictions’ as to the composition of the PTI board, even if as best practice rather than legal prohibitions? -James From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 2:20 PM To: GomesChuck Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition In this whole process, I had always assumed: * 1 Board member from names community * 1 Board member from numbers community * 1 Board member from protocols community * 1 IANA staff member * 1 ICANN Board member Let each group decide on its representative. Simple, balanced, effective. I think the most important thing would be to have as little politics and process as possible. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: 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; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Well, I think I said before that the ICANN/IANA member of an eventual PTI Board should be max. a non-voting observer. There is no obvious reason for having an 'internal' Board if all its members are also represented in the ICANN Board. In any event, I maintain that any conclusion from this discussion is premature. CWG cannot rule on IANA governance, only advise on a partial solution. BTW, in so far as NRO and IETF have abstained form active participation in ICANN in the past,, that was a strategic error on their part, which I suppose they will get round to correcting, soon. CW On 25 May 2015, at 15:30, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Without wading into this discussion just going to make the point with the exception of the CEO its extremely rare to have staff members on the board of their employer and would usually be advised against as best practice in my knowledge. Have we received any legal advice on possible ‘restrictions’ as to the composition of the PTI board, even if as best practice rather than legal prohibitions?
-James
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 2:20 PM To: GomesChuck Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
In this whole process, I had always assumed:
* 1 Board member from names community * 1 Board member from numbers community * 1 Board member from protocols community * 1 IANA staff member * 1 ICANN Board member
Let each group decide on its representative.
Simple, balanced, effective.
I think the most important thing would be to have as little politics and process as possible.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
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; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Although I am not arguing one way or the other about whether staff members should be on the board. I think it is fairly common for organizations to put one of their senior staff members on the Board of an affiliate. Chuck From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 9:30 AM To: Kieren McCarthy; Gomes, Chuck Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition Without wading into this discussion just going to make the point with the exception of the CEO its extremely rare to have staff members on the board of their employer and would usually be advised against as best practice in my knowledge. Have we received any legal advice on possible ‘restrictions’ as to the composition of the PTI board, even if as best practice rather than legal prohibitions? -James From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 2:20 PM To: GomesChuck Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition In this whole process, I had always assumed: * 1 Board member from names community * 1 Board member from numbers community * 1 Board member from protocols community * 1 IANA staff member * 1 ICANN Board member Let each group decide on its representative. Simple, balanced, effective. I think the most important thing would be to have as little politics and process as possible. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: 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; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Chuck made a point that I should have made clearer, I was specifically referring to an IANA staff member on the assumption that IANA staff were moving over to the PTI, if that IANA staff member was still in ICANNS direct employ (Presumably some from GDD under the current org chart) then yes wouldn’t foresee any governance issues as there would then be no conflict of interest for said staff member. -James From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 5:47 PM To: James Gannon; Kieren McCarthy Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition Although I am not arguing one way or the other about whether staff members should be on the board. I think it is fairly common for organizations to put one of their senior staff members on the Board of an affiliate. Chuck From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 9:30 AM To: Kieren McCarthy; Gomes, Chuck Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition Without wading into this discussion just going to make the point with the exception of the CEO its extremely rare to have staff members on the board of their employer and would usually be advised against as best practice in my knowledge. Have we received any legal advice on possible ‘restrictions’ as to the composition of the PTI board, even if as best practice rather than legal prohibitions? -James From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 2:20 PM To: GomesChuck Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition In this whole process, I had always assumed: * 1 Board member from names community * 1 Board member from numbers community * 1 Board member from protocols community * 1 IANA staff member * 1 ICANN Board member Let each group decide on its representative. Simple, balanced, effective. I think the most important thing would be to have as little politics and process as possible. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: 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; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, In terms of the 2&3, I once thought that way and then discovered that the Numbers and Protocols did not necessarily want that responsibility. I do not beleive we can suggest such a possibility. Though perhaps it could eventually be arrived at if requested by those communities. Also, you would not give the PTI chief an ex-officio seat? And why does ICANN Board-Staff get 2 seats? avri On 25-May-15 09:19, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
In this whole process, I had always assumed:
* 1 Board member from names community * 1 Board member from numbers community * 1 Board member from protocols community * 1 IANA staff member * 1 ICANN Board member
Let each group decide on its representative.
Simple, balanced, effective.
I think the most important thing would be to have as little politics and process as possible.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
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; avri@acm.org; 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 >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM >To: 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 >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship@icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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
Well in that setup, item 1 will obviously be the issue (assuming 2 and 3 accepts). That said, considering that PTI is expected to be accountable to the community and considering that each community would already have their respective review teams (like for names we have the CSC), i wonder why it will be important again for the communities to sit on the board. Either using ICANN board or ICANN staff that are not operational staff of IANA seem like a workable option Cheers! On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
In this whole process, I had always assumed:
* 1 Board member from names community * 1 Board member from numbers community * 1 Board member from protocols community * 1 IANA staff member * 1 ICANN Board member
Let each group decide on its representative.
Simple, balanced, effective.
I think the most important thing would be to have as little politics and process as possible.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
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; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
In this whole process, I had always assumed: * 1 Board member from names community Should be 2: one from cc’s, one from g’s. Very different worlds. * 1 Board member from numbers community * 1 Board member from protocols community * 1 IANA staff member As James noted, not staff but director or CEO, who is selected by ICANN. * 1 ICANN Board member Why? If ICANN is already represented via cc’s, g’s and its staff? Also, the numbers and protocols reps could easily be ICANN board members or board liaisons
What about a representative for the end user? Say a CS representative? On May 25, 2015 4:19 PM, "Kieren McCarthy" <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
In this whole process, I had always assumed:
* 1 Board member from names community * 1 Board member from numbers community * 1 Board member from protocols community * 1 IANA staff member * 1 ICANN Board member
Let each group decide on its representative.
Simple, balanced, effective.
I think the most important thing would be to have as little politics and process as possible.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
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; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
And what is the justification other than the elegance of the form, Kieren? I’m obviously looking at a different roles & responsibilities for the PTI Board than you are. Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mwendwa Kivuva Sent: 25 May 2015 18:03 To: Kieren McCarthy Cc: Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition What about a representative for the end user? Say a CS representative? On May 25, 2015 4:19 PM, "Kieren McCarthy" <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote: In this whole process, I had always assumed: * 1 Board member from names community * 1 Board member from numbers community * 1 Board member from protocols community * 1 IANA staff member * 1 ICANN Board member Let each group decide on its representative. Simple, balanced, effective. I think the most important thing would be to have as little politics and process as possible. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: 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<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I don’t see PTI Directors as representing particular segments of the community but rather being responsible of ensuring that PTI provides services as required in its agreement with ICANN including abiding by applicable policies. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 12:44 PM To: Mwendwa Kivuva; Kieren McCarthy Cc: Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition And what is the justification other than the elegance of the form, Kieren? I’m obviously looking at a different roles & responsibilities for the PTI Board than you are. Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mwendwa Kivuva Sent: 25 May 2015 18:03 To: Kieren McCarthy Cc: Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition What about a representative for the end user? Say a CS representative? On May 25, 2015 4:19 PM, "Kieren McCarthy" <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>> wrote: In this whole process, I had always assumed: * 1 Board member from names community * 1 Board member from numbers community * 1 Board member from protocols community * 1 IANA staff member * 1 ICANN Board member Let each group decide on its representative. Simple, balanced, effective. I think the most important thing would be to have as little politics and process as possible. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: 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<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
So I've been following the thread without responding as clearly many of us have very different views of what the PTI will do and will be able to do. I'm not sure that inserting my view is going to help much at the moment. But what I would say is that it is probably worthwhile putting together a simple poll so we have a sense of what people think e.g. * Should the PTI Board members be: chosen by ICANN | chosen by the relevant communities and approved by ICANN | chosen by the communities without requiring ICANN approval * Should the PTI Board be able to vote on any issues independent of ICANN? * Would any issues require approval from the PTI Board to move forward? And so on. Kieren On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
And what is the justification other than the elegance of the form, Kieren? I’m obviously looking at a different roles & responsibilities for the PTI Board than you are.
Martin
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mwendwa Kivuva *Sent:* 25 May 2015 18:03 *To:* Kieren McCarthy *Cc:* Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
What about a representative for the end user? Say a CS representative?
On May 25, 2015 4:19 PM, "Kieren McCarthy" <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
In this whole process, I had always assumed:
* 1 Board member from names community
* 1 Board member from numbers community
* 1 Board member from protocols community
* 1 IANA staff member
* 1 ICANN Board member
Let each group decide on its representative.
Simple, balanced, effective.
I think the most important thing would be to have as little politics and process as possible.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
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; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Alan: Chuck said (and I agree) that two of the board members should be selected by the ccNSO and gNSO. It is obviously a mistake to refer to the GNSO as "registries." Registries are one of only 4 stakeholder groups there. As for ccNSO, given the fact that PTI manages the IANA, which has a particularly sensitive relationship to ccTLDs, I am having trouble understanding ALAC's objection to letting the ccNSO pick a director, also. Indeed, if I were a ccTLD operator, I would object strenuously to any solution that did NOT involve such a right. One could also argue that ccTLD operators and boards are often (though not always) chosen by a local MS community. I think ALAC needs to reconsider its position. It seems poorly thought out. --MM
-----Original Message----- 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).
Milton, It all depends on the role. I would be unhappy if a ccNSO director (or a GNSO one for that matter) thought that part of their role was to talk about (say) a redelegation of .uk. We are back to the problem of having well-meaning and worthy people in a position. That "ccTLD operators and boards are often (though not always) chosen by a local MS community" does not mean that they should be able to judge - yet another judge - in an already delicate relationship. That's not that I do not support your argument - if we have to have cross membership of the two Boards, then Chuck's proposal is sensible (so long as they cannot opine on the merits of a delegation/redelegation, only on whether due process has been followed and documented). It is just that they at least will have a reasonable idea of forward planning and resourcing and requirements for the service. I fear we are drifting from a management board role - a board that will fight PTI's corner with the ICANN Board for resources and ensure that deterioration of service quality is dealt with quickly (even without prompting from the CSC). Martin -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: 25 May 2015 17:39 To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition Alan: Chuck said (and I agree) that two of the board members should be selected by the ccNSO and gNSO. It is obviously a mistake to refer to the GNSO as "registries." Registries are one of only 4 stakeholder groups there. As for ccNSO, given the fact that PTI manages the IANA, which has a particularly sensitive relationship to ccTLDs, I am having trouble understanding ALAC's objection to letting the ccNSO pick a director, also. Indeed, if I were a ccTLD operator, I would object strenuously to any solution that did NOT involve such a right. One could also argue that ccTLD operators and boards are often (though not always) chosen by a local MS community. I think ALAC needs to reconsider its position. It seems poorly thought out. --MM
-----Original Message----- 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).
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org; 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] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I will add a personal +1 to your statement Donna Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 May 2015 19:30, "Donna Austin" <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> 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 [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org; 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] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
+1 CW On 25 May 2015, at 20:28, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org; 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] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org; 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] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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
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> 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org; 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] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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
Hi, So we want PTI to have a sock puppet board. and a situation where the same people controlling the policy will still be controlling the implementation and operations. If that is really what the CWG decides on. it will not matter how that gets picked. Guess that also leads us to a preference for the LLC decision where the subsidiary is completety dependent and run by a hired hand. avri On 25-May-15 23:37, Greg Shatan wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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
I don't think this is what people are saying, Avri. The PTI Board is a management Board and its role is to ensure the good performance of the PTI. It is under contract to ICANN who have stewardship of the performance of the IANA functions operation and has to answer to it. It absolutely has not (and should not have) any role in defining or interpreting policy, which is done in ICANN (and sometimes via other processes) and which is subject to more general enhanced accountability processes in ICANN. Where I have a big concern is a confusion in the role of the two Board and this confusion will be compounded by extending the membership of the PTI Board to such an extent that they claim legitimacy beyond their mandate (because why would they have been put on the Board where they do not have the skill for the role of the Board?). Let's not politicise the PTI Board, please! Martin -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 26 May 2015 05:05 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition Hi, So we want PTI to have a sock puppet board. and a situation where the same people controlling the policy will still be controlling the implementation and operations. If that is really what the CWG decides on. it will not matter how that gets picked. Guess that also leads us to a preference for the LLC decision where the subsidiary is completety dependent and run by a hired hand. avri On 25-May-15 23:37, Greg Shatan wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Simon Sent: 25 May 2015 23:24 To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@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@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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org; 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] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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@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@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Simon Sent: 25 May 2015 23:24 To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@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@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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org; 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] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
In my opinion, having the PTI Board " become the party that will have to decide on (disputed) ccTLD redelegation requests " would be giving it a responsibility that NTIA never had and never fulfilled. My understanding is that currently the IANA team works with applicable government agencies to resolve such disputes but any ultimate decisions are made by the local government authorities and simply confirmed and documented by the IANA team and approved by the ICANN Board. Am I correct on that? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Simon Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 6:24 PM To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@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@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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org; 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] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
hi, For the record I was not imagining the PTI doing that, but was imaging they may have to deal with exception mangement issues and any escalations. avri On 26-May-15 10:45, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
In my opinion, having the PTI Board " become the party that will have to decide on (disputed) ccTLD redelegation requests " would be giving it a responsibility that NTIA never had and never fulfilled. My understanding is that currently the IANA team works with applicable government agencies to resolve such disputes but any ultimate decisions are made by the local government authorities and simply confirmed and documented by the IANA team and approved by the ICANN Board. Am I correct on that?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Simon Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 6:24 PM To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@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@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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org; 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] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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
hi, For the record I was not imagining the PTI doing that, but was imaging they may have to deal with exception mangement issues and any escalations. avri On 26-May-15 10:45, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
In my opinion, having the PTI Board " become the party that will have to decide on (disputed) ccTLD redelegation requests " would be giving it a responsibility that NTIA never had and never fulfilled. My understanding is that currently the IANA team works with applicable government agencies to resolve such disputes but any ultimate decisions are made by the local government authorities and simply confirmed and documented by the IANA team and approved by the ICANN Board. Am I correct on that?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Simon Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 6:24 PM To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@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@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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org; 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] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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
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 <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 [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org; 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] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I don’t think I agree that the ICANN Board “should take much of the responsibility for PTI's functioning and decision-making”. 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. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 10:12 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition 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 <avri@acm.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I don’t think I agree that the ICANN Board “should take much of the responsibility for PTI's functioning and decision-making”. 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.
The way this is going, it seem we (the community) may be forgetting the English proverb proverb that says "You can't have your cake and eat it"; we want to oversight at ICANN(re: accountability/IFRT) and at the same time wants to oversight at PTI. IMHO there is just no realistic way by which PTI board can be MS and still maintain the "small" clause of PTI board. Cheers!
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, May 25, 2015 10:12 PM *To:* Avri Doria *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
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 <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 [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org; 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] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
+1 Seun From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: 26 May 2015 16:50 To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I don’t think I agree that the ICANN Board “should take much of the responsibility for PTI's functioning and decision-making”. 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. The way this is going, it seem we (the community) may be forgetting the English proverb proverb that says "You can't have your cake and eat it"; we want to oversight at ICANN(re: accountability/IFRT) and at the same time wants to oversight at PTI. IMHO there is just no realistic way by which PTI board can be MS and still maintain the "small" clause of PTI board. Cheers! Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 10:12 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition 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 <avri@acm.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
IMHO there is just no realistic way by which PTI board can be MS and still maintain the "small" clause of PTI board.
no but it can be picked using a multistakeholder method, e.g. a Nomcom. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
I agree. The challenge I am having with this discussion is that we have said thatthe composition of the PTI Board should be dictated by the limited/operational functions and duties the Board has to fulfill. Yet, we have not really 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. (Sidley has addressed 1), but to my knowledge we have not yet addressed 2)) 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. 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. 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. Doing its job should determine the number/expertise of the members. Matthew On 5/26/2015 4:39 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I don’t think I agree that the ICANN Board “should take much of the responsibility for PTI's functioning and decision-making”. 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.
Chuck
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, May 25, 2015 10:12 PM *To:* Avri Doria *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
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 <avri@acm.org <mailto: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 <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
Yup! Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On May 26, 2015 12:57:16 PM EDT, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
I agree.
The challenge I am having with this discussion is that we have said thatthe composition of the PTI Board should be dictated by the limited/operational functions and duties the Board has to fulfill. Yet, we have not really 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. (Sidley has addressed 1), but to my knowledge we have not yet addressed 2))
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.
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.
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. Doing its job should determine the number/expertise of the members.
Matthew
On 5/26/2015 4:39 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I don’t think I agree that the ICANN Board “should take much of the responsibility for PTI's functioning and decision-making”. 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.
Chuck
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, May 25, 2015 10:12 PM *To:* Avri Doria *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition
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 <avri@acm.org <mailto: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
<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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
<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>]
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Can’t PTI Board responsibilities be summed up as follows: 1. Fulfill any legal responsibilities required by CA or Delaware law regarding public benefit corporations or LLCs respectively. 2. Ensure that PTI performs its responsibilities defined in its contract with ICANN including complying with approved policy. It goes without saying that the contract has be clear and unambiguous including SLEs, reporting, etc. Chuck From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:05 PM To: Matthew Shears; Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition Yup! Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On May 26, 2015 12:57:16 PM EDT, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> wrote: I agree. The challenge I am having with this discussion is that we have said that the composition of the PTI Board should be dictated by the limited/operational functions and duties the Board has to fulfill. Yet, we have not really 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. (Sidley has addressed 1), but to my knowledge we have not yet addressed 2)) 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. 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. 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. Doing its job should determine the number/expertise of the members. Matthew On 5/26/2015 4:39 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: I don’t think I agree that the ICANN Board “should take much of the responsibility for PTI's functioning and decision-making”. 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. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 10:12 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition 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 <avri@acm.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987 ________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I'm struggling to understand the difference between the affiliate/subsidiary (which was set up to be the IANA functions operator) and the IANA functions operator. It seems to me that the PTI is judged solely on its performance of the contract with ICANN and, because we have the new structure, it has some other administrative things to do, too. Sorry, I'm being dumb. Can you help me by showing where the two roles diverge, please? Thanks Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: 26 May 2015 18:57 To: Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition I agree. The challenge I am having with this discussion is that we have said that the composition of the PTI Board should be dictated by the limited/operational functions and duties the Board has to fulfill. Yet, we have not really 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. (Sidley has addressed 1), but to my knowledge we have not yet addressed 2)) 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. 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. 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. Doing its job should determine the number/expertise of the members. Matthew On 5/26/2015 4:39 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: I don't think I agree that the ICANN Board "should take much of the responsibility for PTI's functioning and decision-making". 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. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 10:12 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition 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 <avri@acm.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
I don't think the PTI roles differ whether it is an affiliate (CA Public Benefit Corporation) or a LLC (subsidiary). In both cases I think you are right: "PTI is judged solely on its performance of the contract with ICANN and, because we have the new structure, it has some other administrative things to do, too." Chuck From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:26 PM To: Matthew Shears; Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition I'm struggling to understand the difference between the affiliate/subsidiary (which was set up to be the IANA functions operator) and the IANA functions operator. It seems to me that the PTI is judged solely on its performance of the contract with ICANN and, because we have the new structure, it has some other administrative things to do, too. Sorry, I'm being dumb. Can you help me by showing where the two roles diverge, please? Thanks Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: 26 May 2015 18:57 To: Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition I agree. The challenge I am having with this discussion is that we have said that the composition of the PTI Board should be dictated by the limited/operational functions and duties the Board has to fulfill. Yet, we have not really 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. (Sidley has addressed 1), but to my knowledge we have not yet addressed 2)) 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. 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. 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. Doing its job should determine the number/expertise of the members. Matthew On 5/26/2015 4:39 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: I don't think I agree that the ICANN Board "should take much of the responsibility for PTI's functioning and decision-making". 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. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 10:12 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition 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 <avri@acm.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
The affiliate = IFO. I don't see the Board involved in managing PTO. They would of course be responsible for directing PTO senior management as needed but that should not require the Board to be involved in day-to-day management. Chuck From: Matthew Shears [mailto:mshears@cdt.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 12:57 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition I agree. The challenge I am having with this discussion is that we have said that the composition of the PTI Board should be dictated by the limited/operational functions and duties the Board has to fulfill. Yet, we have not really 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. (Sidley has addressed 1), but to my knowledge we have not yet addressed 2)) 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. 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. 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. Doing its job should determine the number/expertise of the members. Matthew On 5/26/2015 4:39 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: I don't think I agree that the ICANN Board "should take much of the responsibility for PTI's functioning and decision-making". 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. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 10:12 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition 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 <avri@acm.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
+1 from me, too, Donna. We are at risk duplicating effort and responsibility which will undermine the other mechanisms "We have developed ...to provide for regular monitoring and review, with escalation to deal with non-performance or systemic problems." -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Donna Austin Sent: 25 May 2015 20:29 To: Gomes, Chuck; Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015 5:23 AM To: Alan Greenberg; avri@acm.org; 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] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Alan, how would we be able to select the board to "have the requisite skills and knowledge" "to be the first line of recourse in fixing" when "things are NOT going well"? Martin -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: 24 May 2015 17:57 To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; 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 [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 8:49 AM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (14)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
CW Lists -
Donna Austin -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Kieren McCarthy -
Maarten Simon -
Martin Boyle -
Matthew Shears -
Milton L Mueller -
Mwendwa Kivuva -
Seun Ojedeji