To be clear, when I say I am giving a "personal" position, it is to explicitly state that I am not presenting an ALAC or At-Large consensus-derived position which might be construed if U was silent on the issue. And separability has never been particularly high on the ALAC priority list (and here I AM speaking on behalf of the ALAC). Alan At 24/05/2015 04:10 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:

I'm always a little tickled by the Orwellian turn of phrasing to mask plain desires. All this 'to'ing-and-fro'ing-on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other-hand is for nought.

Here's an idea. Squint your eyes and re-read all the opinions, including the 'personal' ones. What comes out is that we favour a PTI Board of 'insiders' even as we would wish to project a semblance of 'separability'. We desperately want to have our cake and cut our calories.

The contest is to figure out how to make some members - of the PTI Board - more 'equal' than others! Easy. Make an ICANN employee a Board member.

Tch.

-CAS

============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: The ICANN Board is similarly composed of people named by the "community" including the NomCom and we are putting an immense effort into adding new accountability measures to protect us from them (forgive my wording but to a large extent, this IS what all this amounts to. Yes you are saying that this new PTI Board would not need any accountability?

In my personal opinion, the ICANN Board needs community-selected members and "new blood" via the NomCom because the Board is overseeing a MS operation and must weigh and balance the desired and needs of the various parts of the community. On the other hand, the PTI Board is, as we have been repeatedly told, overseeing a relatively small and simple non-profit business and the Board has no such "balancing" needs.

Alan

At 24/05/2015 08:49 AM, Avri Doria wrote: Hi,

I would like to put a proposal on the table on the composition of the PTI Board.

Specifically

On 22-May-15 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:

...

* On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead of having a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should have a majority of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder modality. e.g 1 ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom.

Personally, I propose:

1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by ICANN Board 1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its President or Executive Director or their designee 3 Nomcom Selections various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community discussions

This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI staff has, but would be large enough for some degree of diversity.

While in a formal sense, this would seem to be an outside Board, given that the majority is picked by the ICANN community instead of the ICANN staff, it is an insider board when considered from the perspective of ICANN as a multistakeholder run organization.

It avoids the problem of deciding that one stakeholder type is more appropriate that another, but allows the community on an annual basis to decide which skills and knowledge are most important using a well established ICANN method. The skills and knowledge may vary over time, including considerations such as operational experience, financial skill, international legal knowledge, security capability, root zone operator perspective, community policy perspective, DNS protocol or system design expertise. Those selected by the ICANN Nomcom could be community insiders or outside experts, as decided by each Nomcom according to the perceived needs at that time. The set of considerations and needs would be decided on by the ICANN Nomcom in consultation with ICANN Board & Staff, the multistakeholder community and PTI staff, according to Nomcom's normal current and future practices.

In terms of the current discussions, it allows us to defer certain decisions, such as which skill and knowledge categories are most appropriate until they can address future understandings. It avoid having the CWG micromanage the future of the PTI Board, yet leaves it under the community's control.

thanks avri

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. <http://www.avast.com>http://www.avast.com

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@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