Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board
Greg, I was supporting Jonathan's statement that it would make more sense to discuss who should be on the Board once we know what that Board will be doing. I can live with it doing nothing and all of the decisions coming from the "parent" (thus my use of "puppet" as in someone pulling the strings). I can live with a fully responsible board which would require a different set of players. One of the motivations for having a separate company is to have some independence from ICANN. If the ICANN Board makes all of the decisions, then the new accountability mechanisms will give the community the control it needs, but I am not sure why we are bothering with this new structure or how it can be perceived as providing any buffer from ICANN. If the ICANN Board does NOT make the decisions, then this Board must, and thus a need for the MS community to be able to have some level of control. We need to decide WHAT we are doing before HOW. Alan At 20/04/2015 10:08 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Alan,
First, I agree that the PTI board has responsibility for PTI, as described in the excerpt I pasted in earlier. Generically, "insider" boards are also answerable to the parent company (sole shareholder) and to their board. It is typically a more constrained set of responsibilities, and much less independent than the board of an independent company. Even within those parameters, there are more or less active boards. I doubt that I would describe any as a complete "puppet" -- was that someone else's positive description or just your somewhat negative one?
Greg
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: I agree that some clarity here would be useful.
The Board *IS* responsible for the PTI. Perhaps some envision it as a puppet to some other entity (including budget decisions as well as overseeing senior IANA staff). If that is the case, please specify who.
Alan
At 20/04/2015 12:45 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All,
In thinking about the composition of the board, we need to be clear about the purpose or function of the board and what (if any) tasks it needs to undertake and or decisions it needs to make.
It is clear to me that it has (at minimum) a legal function but that function may well be filled by a minimum board that we previously referred to as an internal or insider board.
Are we clear that the PTI board has a function beyond that minimum and that the functions we may require it to perform are not already to be performed elsewhere?
Thanks,
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: 20 April 2015 17:36 To: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I do not think we should avoid putting some multistakeholder character in the PTI.
It seems to me that the proposal _is_ multi-stakeholder. There are stakes -- names, numbers, protocol parameters -- and they're represented.
IETF laision (are we sure they would agree to this extra level of participation? We should be cautious assigning roles & responsibilities to them
I agree with this worry and thank you for raising it. One thing that's attractive about Milton's proposal, however, is that it simply adds a responsibility to a role alredy defined, so we don't have to find more volunteers and so on (though we do need to add this to the list of things the liaison would have to do). It certainly needs to be confirmed.
a GAC rep (government particpation) an ALAC (user particpatiion)
Why? IANA is a clerical job for a specific purpose. What ought the GAC or the ALAC have to say about it? By constraining the board to this narrow scope of those actually directly affected, we have the hope of constraining PTI from becoming the leverage with which to force other issues (much as has been done in this process, where the entirely clerical IANA job is getting used as the lever to cause ICANN governance changes).
an ICANN Board rep
Since the other appointees are already ICANN board members, why is an additional one needed?
If all accepted, that would bring it to 9. Still a small number.
In my experience, a team of five can make a decision that a group of 9 cannot.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
+1 - this was already discussed in a CWG call. Function determines form... Jorge Von: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. April 2015 06:22 An: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board Greg, I was supporting Jonathan's statement that it would make more sense to discuss who should be on the Board once we know what that Board will be doing. I can live with it doing nothing and all of the decisions coming from the "parent" (thus my use of "puppet" as in someone pulling the strings). I can live with a fully responsible board which would require a different set of players. One of the motivations for having a separate company is to have some independence from ICANN. If the ICANN Board makes all of the decisions, then the new accountability mechanisms will give the community the control it needs, but I am not sure why we are bothering with this new structure or how it can be perceived as providing any buffer from ICANN. If the ICANN Board does NOT make the decisions, then this Board must, and thus a need for the MS community to be able to have some level of control. We need to decide WHAT we are doing before HOW. Alan At 20/04/2015 10:08 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: Alan, First, I agree that the PTI board has responsibility for PTI, as described in the excerpt I pasted in earlier. Generically, "insider" boards are also answerable to the parent company (sole shareholder) and to their board. It is typically a more constrained set of responsibilities, and much less independent than the board of an independent company. Even within those parameters, there are more or less active boards. I doubt that I would describe any as a complete "puppet" -- was that someone else's positive description or just your somewhat negative one? Greg On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: I agree that some clarity here would be useful. The Board *IS* responsible for the PTI. Perhaps some envision it as a puppet to some other entity (including budget decisions as well as overseeing senior IANA staff). If that is the case, please specify who. Alan At 20/04/2015 12:45 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, In thinking about the composition of the board, we need to be clear about the purpose or function of the board and what (if any) tasks it needs to undertake and or decisions it needs to make. It is clear to me that it has (at minimum) a legal function but that function may well be filled by a minimum board that we previously referred to as an internal or insider board. Are we clear that the PTI board has a function beyond that minimum and that the functions we may require it to perform are not already to be performed elsewhere? Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [ mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: 20 April 2015 17:36 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I do not think we should avoid putting some multistakeholder character in the PTI. It seems to me that the proposal _is_ multi-stakeholder. There are stakes -- names, numbers, protocol parameters -- and they're represented. IETF laision (are we sure they would agree to this extra level of participation? We should be cautious assigning roles & responsibilities to them I agree with this worry and thank you for raising it. One thing that's attractive about Milton's proposal, however, is that it simply adds a responsibility to a role alredy defined, so we don't have to find more volunteers and so on (though we do need to add this to the list of things the liaison would have to do). It certainly needs to be confirmed. a GAC rep (government particpation) an ALAC (user particpatiion) Why? IANA is a clerical job for a specific purpose. What ought the GAC or the ALAC have to say about it? By constraining the board to this narrow scope of those actually directly affected, we have the hope of constraining PTI from becoming the leverage with which to force other issues (much as has been done in this process, where the entirely clerical IANA job is getting used as the lever to cause ICANN governance changes). an ICANN Board rep Since the other appointees are already ICANN board members, why is an additional one needed? If all accepted, that would bring it to 9. Still a small number. In my experience, a team of five can make a decision that a group of 9 cannot. Best regards, A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.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
All + 1 Jorge, - and I very much agree with the latest statement from Alan, and also Avris statement on keeping in mind that with CSC being just registries and IGOs (the .int registrants), and the PRT being periodic, it does seem like we are well on our way toward a nearly Multistakeholder free solution. We all agree that PTI board must be efficient, light wait and with skilled people, but I suggest that the CWG keep the PTI board representation open before the public hearing, - the function is not well enough defined at this stage to agree on exact representation and numbers. Elise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sendt: 21. april 2015 10:22 Til: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; gregshatanipc@gmail.com Kopi: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board +1 - this was already discussed in a CWG call. Function determines form... Jorge Von: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. April 2015 06:22 An: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board Greg, I was supporting Jonathan's statement that it would make more sense to discuss who should be on the Board once we know what that Board will be doing. I can live with it doing nothing and all of the decisions coming from the "parent" (thus my use of "puppet" as in someone pulling the strings). I can live with a fully responsible board which would require a different set of players. One of the motivations for having a separate company is to have some independence from ICANN. If the ICANN Board makes all of the decisions, then the new accountability mechanisms will give the community the control it needs, but I am not sure why we are bothering with this new structure or how it can be perceived as providing any buffer from ICANN. If the ICANN Board does NOT make the decisions, then this Board must, and thus a need for the MS community to be able to have some level of control. We need to decide WHAT we are doing before HOW. Alan At 20/04/2015 10:08 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: Alan, First, I agree that the PTI board has responsibility for PTI, as described in the excerpt I pasted in earlier. Generically, "insider" boards are also answerable to the parent company (sole shareholder) and to their board. It is typically a more constrained set of responsibilities, and much less independent than the board of an independent company. Even within those parameters, there are more or less active boards. I doubt that I would describe any as a complete "puppet" -- was that someone else's positive description or just your somewhat negative one? Greg On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: I agree that some clarity here would be useful. The Board *IS* responsible for the PTI. Perhaps some envision it as a puppet to some other entity (including budget decisions as well as overseeing senior IANA staff). If that is the case, please specify who. Alan At 20/04/2015 12:45 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, In thinking about the composition of the board, we need to be clear about the purpose or function of the board and what (if any) tasks it needs to undertake and or decisions it needs to make. It is clear to me that it has (at minimum) a legal function but that function may well be filled by a minimum board that we previously referred to as an internal or insider board. Are we clear that the PTI board has a function beyond that minimum and that the functions we may require it to perform are not already to be performed elsewhere? Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [ mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: 20 April 2015 17:36 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I do not think we should avoid putting some multistakeholder character in the PTI. It seems to me that the proposal _is_ multi-stakeholder. There are stakes -- names, numbers, protocol parameters -- and they're represented. IETF laision (are we sure they would agree to this extra level of participation? We should be cautious assigning roles & responsibilities to them I agree with this worry and thank you for raising it. One thing that's attractive about Milton's proposal, however, is that it simply adds a responsibility to a role alredy defined, so we don't have to find more volunteers and so on (though we do need to add this to the list of things the liaison would have to do). It certainly needs to be confirmed. a GAC rep (government particpation) an ALAC (user particpatiion) Why? IANA is a clerical job for a specific purpose. What ought the GAC or the ALAC have to say about it? By constraining the board to this narrow scope of those actually directly affected, we have the hope of constraining PTI from becoming the leverage with which to force other issues (much as has been done in this process, where the entirely clerical IANA job is getting used as the lever to cause ICANN governance changes). an ICANN Board rep Since the other appointees are already ICANN board members, why is an additional one needed? If all accepted, that would bring it to 9. Still a small number. In my experience, a team of five can make a decision that a group of 9 cannot. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.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
I certainly agree with Jorge that the Board form should be based on its function - and Greg's crib-sheet on the role of Boards - is helpful in this. In addition, we need to think about the constraints that we have (rightly) been putting on the autonomy of the IANA functions operator. On the other side, I'd be alarmed at two Boards, one reporting to the other, that are designed to be multi-stakeholder and with members chosen through separate processes. We are asking for confusion, if not downright competition between the two Boards - which one is the authority in any particular case? A number of people have stated that the PTI Board really does need to be a Management Board - and I think that this is where Brenden's augmentation of Milton's outline comes in. So where is the multi-stakeholder element? I'd suggest there are a number of mechanisms: 1. Publication of reports (as is currently the case) with the IANA functions operator team meeting with the wider community in discussion at ICANN meetings. No exclusions on involvement. 2. An annual CSC report and annual meeting - again open to the wider community's involvement. 3. The PTI Board I think needs to be involved in 1 & 2 as well as giving its own reports to the ICANN Board (again public domain stuff for the main, with a couple of obvious exceptions). 4. The ccNSO and GNSO processes leading to special reviews (PRF). 5. The programmed review (PRF). 6. Consultations from 4 & 5 leading to the report to the ICANN Board. 7. Board response to the PRF (with consultation) 8. ICANN Board "interrogation" processes in response to any concerns from 1-7. 9. Accountability structures put in place to hold the ICANN Board and executive (which I would take to include the executive of the subsidiary) to account In what way would adding a multi-stakeholder Board for the PTI benefit this process? I'd say that the PTI Board (from the role Greg flagged for us) will have the role of: strategic planning for the work of the IANA functions operator; hiring, firing, reviewing and compensating (if applicable) the Executive Director; approving the annual budget and annual financial statements and negotiating with the ICANN Board for the source of funds; ensuring legal compliance in administration and program operations and ensuring that the PTI keeps within its mandate. With the exception of the employment terms of the Executive Director, all of these roles would be in the public domain and the multi-stakeholder community could question the PTI and ICANN Boards at the regular meetings. However, for failings (as the model makes ICANN the steward) the buck stops with the ICANN Board and that would include it getting angry with the PTI Board for failure to respond to deteriorating performance or making its own policy or, or... Cheers Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lindeberg, Elise Sent: 21 April 2015 10:50 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; gregshatanipc@gmail.com Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board All + 1 Jorge, - and I very much agree with the latest statement from Alan, and also Avris statement on keeping in mind that with CSC being just registries and IGOs (the .int registrants), and the PRT being periodic, it does seem like we are well on our way toward a nearly Multistakeholder free solution. We all agree that PTI board must be efficient, light wait and with skilled people, but I suggest that the CWG keep the PTI board representation open before the public hearing, - the function is not well enough defined at this stage to agree on exact representation and numbers. Elise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sendt: 21. april 2015 10:22 Til: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Kopi: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board +1 - this was already discussed in a CWG call. Function determines form... Jorge Von: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. April 2015 06:22 An: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board Greg, I was supporting Jonathan's statement that it would make more sense to discuss who should be on the Board once we know what that Board will be doing. I can live with it doing nothing and all of the decisions coming from the "parent" (thus my use of "puppet" as in someone pulling the strings). I can live with a fully responsible board which would require a different set of players. One of the motivations for having a separate company is to have some independence from ICANN. If the ICANN Board makes all of the decisions, then the new accountability mechanisms will give the community the control it needs, but I am not sure why we are bothering with this new structure or how it can be perceived as providing any buffer from ICANN. If the ICANN Board does NOT make the decisions, then this Board must, and thus a need for the MS community to be able to have some level of control. We need to decide WHAT we are doing before HOW. Alan At 20/04/2015 10:08 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: Alan, First, I agree that the PTI board has responsibility for PTI, as described in the excerpt I pasted in earlier. Generically, "insider" boards are also answerable to the parent company (sole shareholder) and to their board. It is typically a more constrained set of responsibilities, and much less independent than the board of an independent company. Even within those parameters, there are more or less active boards. I doubt that I would describe any as a complete "puppet" -- was that someone else's positive description or just your somewhat negative one? Greg On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: I agree that some clarity here would be useful. The Board *IS* responsible for the PTI. Perhaps some envision it as a puppet to some other entity (including budget decisions as well as overseeing senior IANA staff). If that is the case, please specify who. Alan At 20/04/2015 12:45 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, In thinking about the composition of the board, we need to be clear about the purpose or function of the board and what (if any) tasks it needs to undertake and or decisions it needs to make. It is clear to me that it has (at minimum) a legal function but that function may well be filled by a minimum board that we previously referred to as an internal or insider board. Are we clear that the PTI board has a function beyond that minimum and that the functions we may require it to perform are not already to be performed elsewhere? Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [ mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: 20 April 2015 17:36 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I do not think we should avoid putting some multistakeholder character in the PTI. It seems to me that the proposal _is_ multi-stakeholder. There are stakes -- names, numbers, protocol parameters -- and they're represented. IETF laision (are we sure they would agree to this extra level of participation? We should be cautious assigning roles & responsibilities to them I agree with this worry and thank you for raising it. One thing that's attractive about Milton's proposal, however, is that it simply adds a responsibility to a role alredy defined, so we don't have to find more volunteers and so on (though we do need to add this to the list of things the liaison would have to do). It certainly needs to be confirmed. a GAC rep (government particpation) an ALAC (user particpatiion) Why? IANA is a clerical job for a specific purpose. What ought the GAC or the ALAC have to say about it? By constraining the board to this narrow scope of those actually directly affected, we have the hope of constraining PTI from becoming the leverage with which to force other issues (much as has been done in this process, where the entirely clerical IANA job is getting used as the lever to cause ICANN governance changes). an ICANN Board rep Since the other appointees are already ICANN board members, why is an additional one needed? If all accepted, that would bring it to 9. Still a small number. In my experience, a team of five can make a decision that a group of 9 cannot. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.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
One of the motivations for having a separate company is to have some independence from ICANN. MM: Agreed. We need to decide WHAT we are doing before HOW. MM: The reason I proposed a "how" (a small PTI board composed of names, number and protocols person(s) was that I thought we did know "what" the PTI board was doing. The PTI board is responsible for the management of the IANA functions and for oversight. It should be fairly autonomous from the ICANN board and of course that is the reason we are creating a legally separate affiliate. The PRF escalation path should go through the PTI board, for example.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
The PRF escalation path should go through the PTI board, for example.
Perhaps you meant the CSC and not the PRF as i think PRF (ICANN) is the entity awarding contract to PTI hence PTI is subject to PRF as the contractor. So if there is any escalation to be done as it concerns IANA operations in relations to names, it has to be CSC escalating to PTI. So PTI will sure need some level of MS. IANA issue escalation that may get to PRF will be those that have been independently filed due to gross miss-conduct/non-performance from PTI as the IANA manager. Regards
_______________________________________________ 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 !
You’re right, Seun! My mistake, thanks for catching it From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:57 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: The PRF escalation path should go through the PTI board, for example. Perhaps you meant the CSC and not the PRF as i think PRF (ICANN) is the entity awarding contract to PTI hence PTI is subject to PRF as the contractor. So if there is any escalation to be done as it concerns IANA operations in relations to names, it has to be CSC escalating to PTI. So PTI will sure need some level of MS. IANA issue escalation that may get to PRF will be those that have been independently filed due to gross miss-conduct/non-performance from PTI as the IANA manager. Regards _______________________________________________ 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 !
Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but I am pretty sure the PRF (IANA Functions Review Function) would not go through the CSC. If you look at the Problem Management Process you will see that the CSC may escalate to the ccNSO/GNSO, which in turn can escalate to other accountability mechanisms. A very abbreviated escalation path for non-emergency issues looks like this: 1.a) IANA team: 1.b) Ombudsman – optional; 2) CSC; 3) ccNSO/GNSO; 4) IANA Functions Review Team; 5) full community for ‘nuclear’ options. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:57 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: The PRF escalation path should go through the PTI board, for example. Perhaps you meant the CSC and not the PRF as i think PRF (ICANN) is the entity awarding contract to PTI hence PTI is subject to PRF as the contractor. So if there is any escalation to be done as it concerns IANA operations in relations to names, it has to be CSC escalating to PTI. So PTI will sure need some level of MS. IANA issue escalation that may get to PRF will be those that have been independently filed due to gross miss-conduct/non-performance from PTI as the IANA manager. Regards _______________________________________________ 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 !
I generally agree with Milton's points here except for, "The PTI board is responsible ... for oversight... The PRF escalation path should go through the PTI board, for example." I feel uncomfortable about the PTI Board providing oversight of the role it is performing (except in a management oversight role): I believe that that is the ICANN role. And I think that I agree with the Sidley model (which I thought we agreed when we discussed the PRF) where the review is written in the ICANN bylaws and the PRF is to the ICANN Board (which would then be responsible for ensuring that any concerns were put to right). Have I misunderstood Milton's point? Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: 21 April 2015 15:33 To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Greg Shatan' Cc: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] The PTI board One of the motivations for having a separate company is to have some independence from ICANN. MM: Agreed. We need to decide WHAT we are doing before HOW. MM: The reason I proposed a "how" (a small PTI board composed of names, number and protocols person(s) was that I thought we did know "what" the PTI board was doing. The PTI board is responsible for the management of the IANA functions and for oversight. It should be fairly autonomous from the ICANN board and of course that is the reason we are creating a legally separate affiliate. The PRF escalation path should go through the PTI board, for example.
Have I misunderstood Milton's point? Martin No, I have just stated my point badly. :) By oversight I didn't mean oversight of itself. I meant oversight of the employees of PTI and PTI performance. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Gomes, Chuck -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Lindeberg, Elise -
Martin Boyle -
Milton L Mueller -
Seun Ojedeji