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

Wed Sep 23 10:36:32 UTC 2015

Thanks team colleagues and Alissa,

as to your question, there were comments explaining doubts – derived from the proposal - where the ultimate responsibility for operational issues may be (PTI board or ICANN board) and asking for clear allocation.

Drawn from the list discussion, I have formulated the two following questions to CWG (to be inserted in the total list of questions) :

6) The comments regarding PTI board fell in two broader categories, one about the board’s powers and another one about which members get selected in the board and how. Some of the comments have differing suggestions as to what actual member selection process should be.

Para 1112 of the proposal says: “As a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors and have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.” From the underlying legal expertise (Sidley) we read the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers being with the PTI board. We’d like to ask the CWG whether this interpretation is correct. In this case we recommend adapting the related text accordingly.

To the avoidance of doubt we also recommend to provide a summarizing text on the “minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers”.

7) Some comments raise concern with regards to the risk that ICANN board and PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by seeking to hold the other board responsible. If the CWG agrees that the ultimate responsibility for the PTI performance should be undoubtedly clear then we would ask to provide us with related text.

8) Several comments requested for an explicit limitation of PTI’s and PTI board’s remit. To our understanding 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’d like to ask CWG whether this interpretation is correct and both is clearly expressed in the proposal. Otherwise we recommend adapting the related text accordingly.

The comments re PTI board selection process to my opinion still touch on implementation issues, and I don’t think a question for more detail in the current proposal may be too early. But I’m open to different advice.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Alissa Cooper 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:12 AM
To: WUKnoben 
Cc: ICG 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

Thanks. One question below.

  On Sep 22, 2015, at 3:02 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:

  All,

  here’s what the team has elaborated so far but we had not finally “approved”. So discussion remains open for all.
  I’ll try to send draft ICG questions tomorrow before the call.

  We note that the heading “B”, sub-heading B6, and item B6d, appear on both slides 2 and 3 of the slide deck "PTI related issues-v1.pdf”.  They are dealt with by another sub-team under slide 2, so this sub-team is focusing on “C”. This means that only #29, 31, 50, 51, 80, 81, 92, 95, 102, 103, 107 and 121 are relevant for our task.

  Specific statements with regards to the PTI board can be drawn from para 1111 to 1114 of the ICG proposal.

  Issues raised in the comments:
    1.. limit explicitly the PTI board’s function and scope of powers to the operational oversight of IANA functions or limit the PTI remit 
    2.. provide additional safeguards to ensure PTI remains accountable to the broader multistakeholder community. 
    3.. 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 
I don’t fully understand this summary of the comments. The CWG proposal has a whole framework for establishing SLEs and reviewing IANA’s performance on a regular basis. Are the commenters questioning whether the PTI Board has a role related to the performance of the naming functions? Or something else?

Thanks,
Alissa

    4.. 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 
    5.. PTI board selection process should be discussed including review in case of PTI separation
  Conclusion:
    a.. To 1.:
    From para 1112 of the proposal: “As a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors and have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.” This should read “...board of directors and who have...” since it’s related to the board rather than to the PTI as a whole (derived from Sidley, too).
    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.
    a.. To 2.:
    The “broader community” as well as the operational communities are represented in the CWG. It’s up to them to elaborate on the right level of accountability.
    Suggestion: no ICG action required
    a.. To 3.:
    The ultimate responsibility for the IANA performance should be undoubtedly clear.
    Suggestion: ask the CWG for related discussion and sending verbatim text. ICG question to follow.
    a.. To 4. and 5.:
    implementation topics. Perhaps the ICG should explicitly say so in section 0.
    Question here: should a framework for the related implementation be asked for , and to what extend? Otherwise no ICG action required.
    ICG question to follow.
    a.. 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.
    ICG question to follow.
  Comments welcome!

  Best regards

  Wolf-Ulrich

  _______________________________________________
  Internal-cg mailing list
  Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
  http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/a156c0a2/attachment.html>