Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain
At 21/05/2015 03:07 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
....
The idea that being an "interested party" should be a qualification for participating in a decision causes even greater concern. If anything, this could be deemed a disqualification, since a party with an interest in the outcome will tend to seek an outcome beneficial to that interest, not the community's interest or the public interest. For a variety of reasons, we do not operate that way -- being an interested party does not qualify one from participating in a multistakeholder process relating to that interest. This makes it even more important that a truly inclusive multistakeholder group be assembled to consider and resolve issues regardless of whose ox is being gored, to balance the self-interest of the interested parties and to assure the integrity of the process.
Greg
Greg, I support that completely. And yet, we have continually been told that as the direct customers, only registries (perhaps with token other involvement) need to be involved in a all sorts of decisions related to IANA. Alan
On 21-May-15 23:29, Alan Greenberg wrote:
And yet, we have continually been told that as the direct customers, only registries (perhaps with token other involvement) need to be involved in a all sorts of decisions related to IANA.
I have to admit I may be the only one who remains somewhat confused by the term direct customer: Why is a registry which refers to a root server to make sure all of its entries are correct, more direct than a registrant or user who depends on a resolver that retrieves the data starting with the info in the root server for proper reference to the correct registry. Both are dependent on the correct information to do their business and neither pays IANA for transactions with root servers. They both make indirect reference to the data through the Root servers. One needs data put in, and one needs to pull the data out. The Registrants, Registrars and Registries are the ones paying to support the service, but it seems to me that both registries and users are relying on the service of IANA in a similar manner - we both access them through the root servers. I have accepted the predominance of the registries in the CSC partly because they were so insistent that at this step in the process, they had a SLA imperative. But in the largest sense of whether the IANA was delivering in all of its aspects, I do not see a reason for abrogating the multistakeholder prerogative. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Avri has summarised my thoughts about the topic more eloquently that I could have ever done it. Kind regards, Olivier On 22/05/2015 07:49, Avri Doria wrote:
On 21-May-15 23:29, Alan Greenberg wrote:
And yet, we have continually been told that as the direct customers, only registries (perhaps with token other involvement) need to be involved in a all sorts of decisions related to IANA. I have to admit I may be the only one who remains somewhat confused by the term direct customer:
Why is a registry which refers to a root server to make sure all of its entries are correct, more direct than a registrant or user who depends on a resolver that retrieves the data starting with the info in the root server for proper reference to the correct registry. Both are dependent on the correct information to do their business and neither pays IANA for transactions with root servers. They both make indirect reference to the data through the Root servers. One needs data put in, and one needs to pull the data out.
The Registrants, Registrars and Registries are the ones paying to support the service, but it seems to me that both registries and users are relying on the service of IANA in a similar manner - we both access them through the root servers.
I have accepted the predominance of the registries in the CSC partly because they were so insistent that at this step in the process, they had a SLA imperative. But in the largest sense of whether the IANA was delivering in all of its aspects, I do not see a reason for abrogating the multistakeholder prerogative.
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
Hi Avri,
On May 22, 2015, at 1:49 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 21-May-15 23:29, Alan Greenberg wrote:
And yet, we have continually been told that as the direct customers, only registries (perhaps with token other involvement) need to be involved in a all sorts of decisions related to IANA.
I have to admit I may be the only one who remains somewhat confused by the term direct customer:
I guess I’m confused by your confusion. :-) I’ve followed the thread about the role of different stakeholders and different interests in the process we’re all engaged in, and I hope you’ll indulge me in walking through the example you’re presenting. I’ll say up front I’m not as uncomfortable as you seem to be with the idea that “direct customer” is a meaningful distinction in this case, both as a matter of simple practicality and as a matter of accountability.
Why is a registry which refers to a root server to make sure all of its entries are correct, more direct than a registrant or user who depends on a resolver that retrieves the data starting with the info in the root server for proper reference to the correct registry. Both are dependent on the correct information to do their business and neither pays IANA for transactions with root servers. They both make indirect reference to the data through the Root servers. One needs data put in, and one needs to pull the data out.
Perhaps our views of what is actually provided by IANA differ, or at least our views of who relies upon whom, and for what. It doesn’t seem to me that a TLD registry "refers to a root server to make sure all of its entries are correct.” The TLD operator interacts with IANA (staff, procedures, systems) for this. The TLD operator does not interact with root server systems or operators, because the data gets into the root servers from IANA (shorthand here for, “the infrastructure and processes maintained by the root zone management partners”), not from the TLD operator. Root servers (and sometimes root server operators) interact with IANA, but only on the mechanics of distributing the data, not in any capacity having to do with the content of the zone or the processes for maintaining it as timely or correct. Resolvers interact with root servers. Users interact with end systems, which interact with resolvers. If the data in the root zone for a TLD is wrong, or simply needs to be changed, registry operators don’t go to the root server operators to do it; the root server operators have no processes for such interactions and no capacity to coordinate them. They go to IANA. Now, in the unlikely (as in “hasn’t occurred in many years”) event that data in the root zone has to be changed on an emergency basis, IANA emergency update processes include root server operators in their coordination, but it’s their process, for which they are responsible. Since TLD operators do interact with IANA staff and processes in a way that other users don’t, I guess I’ve never had a problem with referring to their relationship with IANA as more "direct” than the relationship with IANA of others who rely on the root and TLD infrastructure for timely and correct data. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your argument, but it seems self-evident to me that a registry is “more direct [in its relationship with IANA] than a registrant or user who depends on a resolver.” This is because everyone relies upon root servers for proper distribution of the data, but the root servers rely upon IANA as the source. The only place the data can be changed is inside IANA’s processes, so TLD operators can only rely upon IANA staff and processes to get their data correctly into the root zone.
The Registrants, Registrars and Registries are the ones paying to support the service, but it seems to me that both registries and users are relying on the service of IANA in a similar manner - we both access them through the root servers.
It seems to me that these are not so similar. TLD operators interact with IANA staff and processes, and rely directly upon them to get TLD data correctly into the root zone. OTOH users do indeed access the service IANA provides through the root servers via their local DNS infrastructure. It seems to me that the IANA functions operator for root zone management is accountable to all of them, but hardly in identical ways or through identical means. There seems also to be a question raised in the thread more implicitly, of making sure that interests other than those of registry operators are included in the processes and oversight of IANA’s technical service of maintaining the DNS root zone. However, I’m having trouble seeing a specific case where the interests of registry operators wouldn’t be aligned with the interests of users in having a correct, available, securely managed root zone, so I don’t know what additional interests would be accommodated by including additional stakeholders. Can you help me understand that? thanks, Suzanne
-- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On May 22, 2015 1:49:16 AM EDT, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 21-May-15 23:29, Alan Greenberg wrote:
And yet, we have continually been told that as the direct customers, only registries (perhaps with token other involvement) need to be involved in a all sorts of decisions related to IANA.
I have to admit I may be the only one who remains somewhat confused by the term direct customer:
Why is a registry which refers to a root server to make sure all of its entries are correct, more direct than a registrant or user who depends on a resolver that retrieves the data starting with the info in the root server for proper reference to the correct registry. Both are dependent on the correct information to do their business and neither pays IANA for transactions with root servers. They both make indirect reference to the data through the Root servers. One needs data put in, and one needs to pull the data out.
The Registrants, Registrars and Registries are the ones paying to support the service, but it seems to me that both registries and users are relying on the service of IANA in a similar manner - we both access them through the root servers.
I have accepted the predominance of the registries in the CSC partly because they were so insistent that at this step in the process, they had a SLA imperative. But in the largest sense of whether the IANA was delivering in all of its aspects, I do not see a reason for abrogating the multistakeholder prerogative.
Avri
I think that the difference is that registries interact directly with IANA to make changes in the root and it is the responce to these changes that we are measuring wrt the SLEs.
--- 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 think that the difference is that registries interact directly with IANA to make changes in the root and it is the responce to these changes that we are measuring wrt the SLEs.
Exactly. And let me agree with Suzanne's careful deconstruction of direct vs. indirect. Registries are making entries in the root zone, registrants are using those entries. --MM
hi, On 22-May-15 18:46, Milton L Mueller wrote:
I think that the difference is that registries interact directly with IANA to make changes in the root and it is the responce to these changes that we are measuring wrt the SLEs. Exactly. And let me agree with Suzanne's careful deconstruction of direct vs. indirect. Registries are making entries in the root zone, registrants are using those entries.
As i noted, the SLE are the reason for it being reasonable for the CSC, which concerns itself with SLE for being Registry heavy with a few Liaison. It is not a matter of being a so-called direct customer, it is a matter of managing to a SLE. As for Suzanne's deconstruction, It was a good explanation, but I do not agree with the use of direct versus indirect. they do have a different perspectives, but I still see both of that as just customers of a different type. My issue is with the multistakeholder nature of the IANA Function Review and the Separation Cross Community Working Group and the PTI Board*, where it has nothing to do with being a direct customer or not. At that level they are both customers, customers of a different type - one makes entries and one uses entries - but both customers. It is in these situations where I see no reason to give the Registries disproportionate representation. avri * 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. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
As for Suzanne's deconstruction, It was a good explanation, but I do not agree with the use of direct versus indirect. they do have a different perspectives, but I still see both of that as just customers of a different type.
+1 on this as well...in the numbers community i would not expect an ISP/end-user to be called lesser than the RIR just because they are not assigned /8s. The one who gets assigned /8 (is likened to the names registries) while others who get > /9 subnets (are likened to be names registrants).
My issue is with the multistakeholder nature of the IANA Function Review and the Separation Cross Community Working Group and the PTI Board*, where it has nothing to do with being a direct customer or not. At that level they are both customers, customers of a different type - one makes entries and one uses entries - but both customers. It is in these situations where I see no reason to give the Registries disproportionate representation.
Absolute +1; i don't think categorisation of customers should be practised to the benefit of "one community than the other" in multi-stakeholder participation, especially within this context. In the numbers world, whatever customer category you belong, you are recognised to have equal membership status on the floor. Regards
avri
* 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.
--- 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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 !
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
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
Hi, On 24-May-15 10:25, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
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 think that they are fit for purpose. They are able to adapt their criteria to picks people in oversight, policy recommendation and advisory roles in the same year according to a variety of criteria and needs. And we can expect that as Nomcom evolves over the years in response to reviews that are part of the accountability processes, it will become even better adapted. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Hi Avri, Thanks for the attempt, I don't think the noncom option would work especially as they would be selecting within stakeholders that are more than 3. I would have love to have an MS PTI board, but the possibility of it not becoming a large one may not be realistic. I see 3 options going forward: - PTI gets filled with a committee of ICANN board and IANA most senior staff - PTI gets filled with 2 ICANN global leaders, 1 ICANN board liaison and IANA most senior staff - We ask legal if it's compulsory to have a for PTI and if it isn't then the most senior IANA staff should just manage PTI and report to ICANN board/community Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 24 May 2015 13:50, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I would like to put a proposal on the table on the composition of the PTI Board.
Specifically
On 22-May-15 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
* On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead of having a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should have a majority of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder modality. e.g 1 ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom.
Personally, I propose:
1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by ICANN Board 1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its President or Executive Director or their designee 3 Nomcom Selections various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community discussions
This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI staff has, but would be large enough for some degree of diversity.
While in a formal sense, this would seem to be an outside Board, given that the majority is picked by the ICANN community instead of the ICANN staff, it is an insider board when considered from the perspective of ICANN as a multistakeholder run organization.
It avoids the problem of deciding that one stakeholder type is more appropriate that another, but allows the community on an annual basis to decide which skills and knowledge are most important using a well established ICANN method. The skills and knowledge may vary over time, including considerations such as operational experience, financial skill, international legal knowledge, security capability, root zone operator perspective, community policy perspective, DNS protocol or system design expertise. Those selected by the ICANN Nomcom could be community insiders or outside experts, as decided by each Nomcom according to the perceived needs at that time. The set of considerations and needs would be decided on by the ICANN Nomcom in consultation with ICANN Board & Staff, the multistakeholder community and PTI staff, according to Nomcom's normal current and future practices.
In terms of the current discussions, it allows us to defer certain decisions, such as which skill and knowledge categories are most appropriate until they can address future understandings. It avoid having the CWG micromanage the future of the PTI Board, yet leaves it under the community's control.
thanks avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 24 May 2015 15:53, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Avri,
Thanks for the attempt, I don't think the noncom option would work
especially as they would be selecting within stakeholders that are more than 3. I would have love to have an MS PTI board, but the possibility of it not becoming a large one may not be realistic.
I see 3 options going forward:
- PTI gets filled with a committee of ICANN board and IANA most senior staff
- PTI gets filled with 2 ICANN global leaders, 1 ICANN board liaison and IANA most senior staff
- We ask legal if it's compulsory to have a for PTI and if it isn't then the most senior IANA staff should just manage PTI and report to ICANN board/community
SO: Edit: - We ask legal if it's compulsory to have a *board* for PTI and if it isn't then the most senior IANA staff should just manage PTI and report to ICANN board/community Cheers!
Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 24 May 2015 13:50, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I would like to put a proposal on the table on the composition of the PTI Board.
Specifically
On 22-May-15 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
* On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead of
having
a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should have a majority of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder modality. e.g 1 ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom.
Personally, I propose:
1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by ICANN Board 1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its President or Executive Director or their designee 3 Nomcom Selections various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community discussions
This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI staff has, but would be large enough for some degree of diversity.
While in a formal sense, this would seem to be an outside Board, given that the majority is picked by the ICANN community instead of the ICANN staff, it is an insider board when considered from the perspective of ICANN as a multistakeholder run organization.
It avoids the problem of deciding that one stakeholder type is more appropriate that another, but allows the community on an annual basis to decide which skills and knowledge are most important using a well established ICANN method. The skills and knowledge may vary over time, including considerations such as operational experience, financial skill, international legal knowledge, security capability, root zone operator perspective, community policy perspective, DNS protocol or system design expertise. Those selected by the ICANN Nomcom could be community insiders or outside experts, as decided by each Nomcom according to the perceived needs at that time. The set of considerations and needs would be decided on by the ICANN Nomcom in consultation with ICANN Board & Staff, the multistakeholder community and PTI staff, according to Nomcom's normal current and future practices.
In terms of the current discussions, it allows us to defer certain decisions, such as which skill and knowledge categories are most appropriate until they can address future understandings. It avoid having the CWG micromanage the future of the PTI Board, yet leaves it under the community's control.
thanks avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Seun, It's a basic and unwaivable element of a corporation (non-profit or for profit) to have a board of directors. The relevant section of the California Corporate Code reads (emphasis added): 5210. *Each corporation shall have a board of directors.* Subject to the provisions of this part and any limitations in the articles or bylaws relating to action required to be approved by the members (Section 5034), or by a majority of all members (Section 5033), the activities and affairs of a corporation shall be conducted and all corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the board. The board may delegate the management of the activities of the corporation to any person or persons, management company, or committee however composed, provided that the activities and affairs of the corporation shall be managed and all corporate powers shall be exercised under the ultimate direction of the board. On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 24 May 2015 15:53, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Avri,
Thanks for the attempt, I don't think the noncom option would work
especially as they would be selecting within stakeholders that are more than 3. I would have love to have an MS PTI board, but the possibility of it not becoming a large one may not be realistic.
I see 3 options going forward:
- PTI gets filled with a committee of ICANN board and IANA most senior staff
- PTI gets filled with 2 ICANN global leaders, 1 ICANN board liaison and IANA most senior staff
- We ask legal if it's compulsory to have a for PTI and if it isn't then the most senior IANA staff should just manage PTI and report to ICANN board/community
SO: Edit:
- We ask legal if it's compulsory to have a *board* for PTI and if it isn't then the most senior IANA staff should just manage PTI and report to ICANN board/community
Cheers!
Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 24 May 2015 13:50, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I would like to put a proposal on the table on the composition of the PTI Board.
Specifically
On 22-May-15 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
* On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead of
having
a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should have a majority of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder modality. e.g 1 ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom.
Personally, I propose:
1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by ICANN Board 1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its President or Executive Director or their designee 3 Nomcom Selections various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community discussions
This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI staff has, but would be large enough for some degree of diversity.
While in a formal sense, this would seem to be an outside Board, given that the majority is picked by the ICANN community instead of the ICANN staff, it is an insider board when considered from the perspective of ICANN as a multistakeholder run organization.
It avoids the problem of deciding that one stakeholder type is more appropriate that another, but allows the community on an annual basis to decide which skills and knowledge are most important using a well established ICANN method. The skills and knowledge may vary over time, including considerations such as operational experience, financial skill, international legal knowledge, security capability, root zone operator perspective, community policy perspective, DNS protocol or system design expertise. Those selected by the ICANN Nomcom could be community insiders or outside experts, as decided by each Nomcom according to the perceived needs at that time. The set of considerations and needs would be decided on by the ICANN Nomcom in consultation with ICANN Board & Staff, the multistakeholder community and PTI staff, according to Nomcom's normal current and future practices.
In terms of the current discussions, it allows us to defer certain decisions, such as which skill and knowledge categories are most appropriate until they can address future understandings. It avoid having the CWG micromanage the future of the PTI Board, yet leaves it under the community's control.
thanks avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ 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
All, I assume that we want ICANN-the-corporation (ICANN) to be accountable for the actions of PTI, and in turn ICANN-the-community (the Community) will hold ICANN accountable for any failures. If that is the case, I think we are really limited to an "insider" board for PTI. By that I mean an "insider" board in the sense used by counsel -- a majority of board members appointed at the discretion of ICANN (most likely by ICANN as the sole member of PTI). (Not insiders in the sense of active and experienced members of the community, though ICANN could choose to appoint such people.) For ICANN to be in charge of and accountable for the actions of PTI, the board really needs to be in ICANN's hands. (There could still be a minority of "outsiders" on the board, but only a minority.) If the board is an outsider board (again, in the sense used by counsel -- a majority not appointed by ICANN), then PTI is really no longer part of the ICANN business. This is particularly true if PTI is a non profit (e.g., a California public benefit corporation), since the non profit cannot be owned by ICANN. Thus, "control" of PTI is really the prime (and essentially only) indicia of ownership. And without an inside board, ICANN really cannot be said to "control" PTI. Greg On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Seun,
It's a basic and unwaivable element of a corporation (non-profit or for profit) to have a board of directors. The relevant section of the California Corporate Code reads (emphasis added):
5210. *Each corporation shall have a board of directors.* Subject to the provisions of this part and any limitations in the articles or bylaws relating to action required to be approved by the members (Section 5034), or by a majority of all members (Section 5033), the activities and affairs of a corporation shall be conducted and all corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the board. The board may delegate the management of the activities of the corporation to any person or persons, management company, or committee however composed, provided that the activities and affairs of the corporation shall be managed and all corporate powers shall be exercised under the ultimate direction of the board.
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 24 May 2015 15:53, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Avri,
Thanks for the attempt, I don't think the noncom option would work
especially as they would be selecting within stakeholders that are more than 3. I would have love to have an MS PTI board, but the possibility of it not becoming a large one may not be realistic.
I see 3 options going forward:
- PTI gets filled with a committee of ICANN board and IANA most senior staff
- PTI gets filled with 2 ICANN global leaders, 1 ICANN board liaison and IANA most senior staff
- We ask legal if it's compulsory to have a for PTI and if it isn't then the most senior IANA staff should just manage PTI and report to ICANN board/community
SO: Edit:
- We ask legal if it's compulsory to have a *board* for PTI and if it isn't then the most senior IANA staff should just manage PTI and report to ICANN board/community
Cheers!
Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 24 May 2015 13:50, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I would like to put a proposal on the table on the composition of the PTI Board.
Specifically
On 22-May-15 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
* On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead of
having
a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should have a majority of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder modality. e.g 1 ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom.
Personally, I propose:
1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by ICANN Board 1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its President or Executive Director or their designee 3 Nomcom Selections various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community discussions
This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI staff has, but would be large enough for some degree of diversity.
While in a formal sense, this would seem to be an outside Board, given that the majority is picked by the ICANN community instead of the ICANN staff, it is an insider board when considered from the perspective of ICANN as a multistakeholder run organization.
It avoids the problem of deciding that one stakeholder type is more appropriate that another, but allows the community on an annual basis to decide which skills and knowledge are most important using a well established ICANN method. The skills and knowledge may vary over time, including considerations such as operational experience, financial skill, international legal knowledge, security capability, root zone operator perspective, community policy perspective, DNS protocol or system design expertise. Those selected by the ICANN Nomcom could be community insiders or outside experts, as decided by each Nomcom according to the perceived needs at that time. The set of considerations and needs would be decided on by the ICANN Nomcom in consultation with ICANN Board & Staff, the multistakeholder community and PTI staff, according to Nomcom's normal current and future practices.
In terms of the current discussions, it allows us to defer certain decisions, such as which skill and knowledge categories are most appropriate until they can address future understandings. It avoid having the CWG micromanage the future of the PTI Board, yet leaves it under the community's control.
thanks avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ 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
Greg: Without necessarily agreeing with your assumption that the PTI board needs to be “insider” in the extreme sense you describe, I wonder whether legally the same result could be obtained if the GNSO and CCNSO nominated PTI directors subject to the approval of the ICANN board. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 1:11 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: avri; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] PTI Board Composition All, I assume that we want ICANN-the-corporation (ICANN) to be accountable for the actions of PTI, and in turn ICANN-the-community (the Community) will hold ICANN accountable for any failures. If that is the case, I think we are really limited to an "insider" board for PTI. By that I mean an "insider" board in the sense used by counsel -- a majority of board members appointed at the discretion of ICANN (most likely by ICANN as the sole member of PTI). (Not insiders in the sense of active and experienced members of the community, though ICANN could choose to appoint such people.) For ICANN to be in charge of and accountable for the actions of PTI, the board really needs to be in ICANN's hands. (There could still be a minority of "outsiders" on the board, but only a minority.) If the board is an outsider board (again, in the sense used by counsel -- a majority not appointed by ICANN), then PTI is really no longer part of the ICANN business. This is particularly true if PTI is a non profit (e.g., a California public benefit corporation), since the non profit cannot be owned by ICANN. Thus, "control" of PTI is really the prime (and essentially only) indicia of ownership. And without an inside board, ICANN really cannot be said to "control" PTI. Greg On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Seun, It's a basic and unwaivable element of a corporation (non-profit or for profit) to have a board of directors. The relevant section of the California Corporate Code reads (emphasis added): 5210. Each corporation shall have a board of directors. Subject to the provisions of this part and any limitations in the articles or bylaws relating to action required to be approved by the members (Section 5034), or by a majority of all members (Section 5033), the activities and affairs of a corporation shall be conducted and all corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the board. The board may delegate the management of the activities of the corporation to any person or persons, management company, or committee however composed, provided that the activities and affairs of the corporation shall be managed and all corporate powers shall be exercised under the ultimate direction of the board. On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 24 May 2015 15:53, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Avri,
Thanks for the attempt, I don't think the noncom option would work especially as they would be selecting within stakeholders that are more than 3. I would have love to have an MS PTI board, but the possibility of it not becoming a large one may not be realistic. I see 3 options going forward:
- PTI gets filled with a committee of ICANN board and IANA most senior staff
- PTI gets filled with 2 ICANN global leaders, 1 ICANN board liaison and IANA most senior staff
- We ask legal if it's compulsory to have a for PTI and if it isn't then the most senior IANA staff should just manage PTI and report to ICANN board/community
SO: Edit: - We ask legal if it's compulsory to have a *board* for PTI and if it isn't then the most senior IANA staff should just manage PTI and report to ICANN board/community Cheers!
Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 24 May 2015 13:50, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
I would like to put a proposal on the table on the composition of the PTI Board.
Specifically
On 22-May-15 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
* On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead of having a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should have a majority of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder modality. e.g 1 ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom.
Personally, I propose:
1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by ICANN Board 1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its President or Executive Director or their designee 3 Nomcom Selections various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community discussions
This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI staff has, but would be large enough for some degree of diversity.
While in a formal sense, this would seem to be an outside Board, given that the majority is picked by the ICANN community instead of the ICANN staff, it is an insider board when considered from the perspective of ICANN as a multistakeholder run organization.
It avoids the problem of deciding that one stakeholder type is more appropriate that another, but allows the community on an annual basis to decide which skills and knowledge are most important using a well established ICANN method. The skills and knowledge may vary over time, including considerations such as operational experience, financial skill, international legal knowledge, security capability, root zone operator perspective, community policy perspective, DNS protocol or system design expertise. Those selected by the ICANN Nomcom could be community insiders or outside experts, as decided by each Nomcom according to the perceived needs at that time. The set of considerations and needs would be decided on by the ICANN Nomcom in consultation with ICANN Board & Staff, the multistakeholder community and PTI staff, according to Nomcom's normal current and future practices.
In terms of the current discussions, it allows us to defer certain decisions, such as which skill and knowledge categories are most appropriate until they can address future understandings. It avoid having the CWG micromanage the future of the PTI Board, yet leaves it under the community's control.
thanks avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ 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
The ICANN Board is similarly composed of people named by the "community" including the NomCom and we are putting an immense effort into adding new accountability measures to protect us from them (forgive my wording but to a large extent, this IS what all this amounts to. Yes you are saying that this new PTI Board would not need any accountability? In my personal opinion, the ICANN Board needs community-selected members and "new blood" via the NomCom because the Board is overseeing a MS operation and must weigh and balance the desired and needs of the various parts of the community. On the other hand, the PTI Board is, as we have been repeatedly told, overseeing a relatively small and simple non-profit business and the Board has no such "balancing" needs. Alan At 24/05/2015 08:49 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I would like to put a proposal on the table on the composition of the PTI Board.
Specifically
On 22-May-15 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
* On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead of having a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should have a majority of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder modality. e.g 1 ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom.
Personally, I propose:
1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by ICANN Board 1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its President or Executive Director or their designee 3 Nomcom Selections various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community discussions
This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI staff has, but would be large enough for some degree of diversity.
While in a formal sense, this would seem to be an outside Board, given that the majority is picked by the ICANN community instead of the ICANN staff, it is an insider board when considered from the perspective of ICANN as a multistakeholder run organization.
It avoids the problem of deciding that one stakeholder type is more appropriate that another, but allows the community on an annual basis to decide which skills and knowledge are most important using a well established ICANN method. The skills and knowledge may vary over time, including considerations such as operational experience, financial skill, international legal knowledge, security capability, root zone operator perspective, community policy perspective, DNS protocol or system design expertise. Those selected by the ICANN Nomcom could be community insiders or outside experts, as decided by each Nomcom according to the perceived needs at that time. The set of considerations and needs would be decided on by the ICANN Nomcom in consultation with ICANN Board & Staff, the multistakeholder community and PTI staff, according to Nomcom's normal current and future practices.
In terms of the current discussions, it allows us to defer certain decisions, such as which skill and knowledge categories are most appropriate until they can address future understandings. It avoid having the CWG micromanage the future of the PTI Board, yet leaves it under the community's control.
thanks avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I'm always a little tickled by the Orwellian turn of phrasing to mask plain desires. All this 'to'ing-and-fro'ing-on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other-hand is for nought. Here's an idea. Squint your eyes and re-read all the opinions, including the 'personal' ones. What comes out is that we favour a PTI Board of 'insiders' even as we would wish to project a semblance of 'separability'. We desperately want to have our cake and cut our calories. The contest is to figure out how to make some members - of the PTI Board - more 'equal' than others! Easy. Make an ICANN employee a Board member. Tch. -CAS ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
The ICANN Board is similarly composed of people named by the "community" including the NomCom and we are putting an immense effort into adding new accountability measures to protect us from them (forgive my wording but to a large extent, this IS what all this amounts to. Yes you are saying that this new PTI Board would not need any accountability?
In my personal opinion, the ICANN Board needs community-selected members and "new blood" via the NomCom because the Board is overseeing a MS operation and must weigh and balance the desired and needs of the various parts of the community. On the other hand, the PTI Board is, as we have been repeatedly told, overseeing a relatively small and simple non-profit business and the Board has no such "balancing" needs.
Alan
At 24/05/2015 08:49 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I would like to put a proposal on the table on the composition of the PTI Board.
Specifically
On 22-May-15 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
* On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead of having a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should have a majority of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder modality. e.g 1 ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom.
Personally, I propose:
1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by ICANN Board 1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its President or Executive Director or their designee 3 Nomcom Selections various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community discussions
This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI staff has, but would be large enough for some degree of diversity.
While in a formal sense, this would seem to be an outside Board, given that the majority is picked by the ICANN community instead of the ICANN staff, it is an insider board when considered from the perspective of ICANN as a multistakeholder run organization.
It avoids the problem of deciding that one stakeholder type is more appropriate that another, but allows the community on an annual basis to decide which skills and knowledge are most important using a well established ICANN method. The skills and knowledge may vary over time, including considerations such as operational experience, financial skill, international legal knowledge, security capability, root zone operator perspective, community policy perspective, DNS protocol or system design expertise. Those selected by the ICANN Nomcom could be community insiders or outside experts, as decided by each Nomcom according to the perceived needs at that time. The set of considerations and needs would be decided on by the ICANN Nomcom in consultation with ICANN Board & Staff, the multistakeholder community and PTI staff, according to Nomcom's normal current and future practices.
In terms of the current discussions, it allows us to defer certain decisions, such as which skill and knowledge categories are most appropriate until they can address future understandings. It avoid having the CWG micromanage the future of the PTI Board, yet leaves it under the community's control.
thanks avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ 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
Good afternoon: I find this discussion as useful and interesting background. Not more, at this stage. The membership of the eventual IANA oversight bodies, including PTI, should be determined AFTER the post transition IANA has been consolidated together with CWG, the RIRs and IETF, and AFTER ICG has made a final proposal. May I recall that one of the principal considerations will be the economy and efficiency of oversight, including civil society and governments. There should not be agreement on any of this until the whole transition proposañ is on the table. Regards CW On 24 May 2015, at 14:49, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I would like to put a proposal on the table on the composition of the PTI Board.
Specifically
On 22-May-15 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:
* On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead of having a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should have a majority of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder modality. e.g 1 ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom.
Personally, I propose:
1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by ICANN Board 1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its President or Executive Director or their designee 3 Nomcom Selections various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community discussions
This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI staff has, but would be large enough for some degree of diversity.
While in a formal sense, this would seem to be an outside Board, given that the majority is picked by the ICANN community instead of the ICANN staff, it is an insider board when considered from the perspective of ICANN as a multistakeholder run organization.
It avoids the problem of deciding that one stakeholder type is more appropriate that another, but allows the community on an annual basis to decide which skills and knowledge are most important using a well established ICANN method. The skills and knowledge may vary over time, including considerations such as operational experience, financial skill, international legal knowledge, security capability, root zone operator perspective, community policy perspective, DNS protocol or system design expertise. Those selected by the ICANN Nomcom could be community insiders or outside experts, as decided by each Nomcom according to the perceived needs at that time. The set of considerations and needs would be decided on by the ICANN Nomcom in consultation with ICANN Board & Staff, the multistakeholder community and PTI staff, according to Nomcom's normal current and future practices.
In terms of the current discussions, it allows us to defer certain decisions, such as which skill and knowledge categories are most appropriate until they can address future understandings. It avoid having the CWG micromanage the future of the PTI Board, yet leaves it under the community's control.
thanks avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Without minimizing the important impact on 2nd level domain name registrants, the terms direct and indirect are really very straight forward. ccTLD and gTLD registries apply directly to the IFO for root server actions and hence are direct customers of the IFO. In the gTLD world this is similar to the relationships of registrants with registrars and registries; registrants are direct customers of registrars and indirect customers of registries. What is confusing about this? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 1:49 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Direct customers vs. the rest of stakeholders On 21-May-15 23:29, Alan Greenberg wrote:
And yet, we have continually been told that as the direct customers, only registries (perhaps with token other involvement) need to be involved in a all sorts of decisions related to IANA.
I have to admit I may be the only one who remains somewhat confused by the term direct customer: Why is a registry which refers to a root server to make sure all of its entries are correct, more direct than a registrant or user who depends on a resolver that retrieves the data starting with the info in the root server for proper reference to the correct registry. Both are dependent on the correct information to do their business and neither pays IANA for transactions with root servers. They both make indirect reference to the data through the Root servers. One needs data put in, and one needs to pull the data out. The Registrants, Registrars and Registries are the ones paying to support the service, but it seems to me that both registries and users are relying on the service of IANA in a similar manner - we both access them through the root servers. I have accepted the predominance of the registries in the CSC partly because they were so insistent that at this step in the process, they had a SLA imperative. But in the largest sense of whether the IANA was delivering in all of its aspects, I do not see a reason for abrogating the multistakeholder prerogative. 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
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Carlton Samuels -
CW Lists -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Milton L Mueller -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Seun Ojedeji -
Suzanne Woolf