[Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3

[Jari Arkko]

> • limit explicitly the PTI board’s function and scope of powers to the operational oversight of IANA functions or limit the PTI remit
> • provide additional safeguards to ensure PTI remains accountable to the broader multistakeholder community.
> • the composition of the PTI board should ensure who bears ultimate responsibility for the IANA performance (ICANN board or PTI board): e.g. 1. subset of ICANN board members or 2. coming more from the community or 3. mix; caution against capture by governments or industry
> • criteria for board member selection to be established: e.g.  professional knowledge, geographical balance, community representation, conflict of interest, gender balance, able to grasp and attend to any public interest or human rights concern that the board might face, overall neutrality
> • PTI board selection process should be discussed including review in case of PTI separation

Abstracting a bit higher up, my read of the comments was that they fell in two broader categories, one about the board’s powers and another one about which members get selected in the board and how. The former is the first item above, and the member selection, the process, and its future evolution is the rest. Some of the comments have differing suggestions as to what actual member selection process should be, but I believe the real question is whether additional details of the process can be provided.

In my view, both items have been discussed at length but the actual proposal has relatively little detail, some of which could be added. I do not know if the problem of boards blaming each other for operational problems (comment #81) has been considered, but that’s a useful question to ask from the CWG.

All in all, I would classify both categories of comments as something where we could ask (but not necessarily require) the CWG if they want to add detail. So, as WU wrote:

issue 1 (board powers):

From the content it seems to be clear that the PTI board’s scope is not on the operations itself rather than on the operations’ oversight. To the avoidance of doubt the “minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers” could be described in detail.
Suggestion: ask the CWG whether this could be provided. If yes, send us verbatim text. ICG question to follow.

issue 2-5 (board member selection):

Suggestion: ask the CWG for related discussion and sending verbatim text. ICG question to follow.

additional issue (regarding limitation of PTI’s remit):

The proposal should be clear that PTI should operationally take over 1:1 IANA’s present tasks and should be limited to this. PTI’s board obligations shall cover the operations oversight. We can ask CWG whether both is clearly expressed in the proposal and  if not and if they agree then they may provide verbatim text.

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/0580cc09/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/0580cc09/attachment.asc>