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

WUKnoben wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Wed Sep 23 18:51:03 UTC 2015


That’s it, thanks!

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Alissa Cooper 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 6:17 PM
To: WUKnoben 
Cc: ICG 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3

On Sep 23, 2015, at 8:02 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:



  Thanks Alissa!

  I agree to your amendments re the first question.

  With respect to the second question you’re right that it isn’t the best one. The concern in the comments over the last responsibility for carrying out the IANA functions is raised more in context with the proposed PTI board composition (mix of ICANN employees and “independent” members). So a better question would be who takes this last responsibility: the ICANN board through the contract with PTI or the PTI board. To my understanding this is not explicitly covered by para 1113. But if others are convinced it is I’m not adhered to.

  Here’s an attempt to re-formulate the question:
  7) Some comments raise concern in context with the proposed PTI board composition (mix of ICANN employees and “independent” members) that ICANN board and PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by seeking to hold the other board responsible. Para 1113 of the proposal indicates the PTI’s board operational oversight responsibilities “under the IANA functions contract with ICANN”. We would prefer a clear statement on where the last responsibility for carrying out the IANA functions is allocated.

  If you or other native speakers could help with the formulation, I’d appreciate.



Ok, I see the direction of this now. Here is what I would suggest:

Some comments raise concerns in the context of the proposed PTI board composition (mix of ICANN employees and independent directors) that the ICANN board and the PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by each seeking to hold the other board responsible. Para 1113 of the proposal indicates that the PTI board will be responsible for ensuring that the PTI "fulfills its responsibilities under the IANA functions contract with ICANN.” Could the CWG provide an unambiguous statement as to which of the two boards will ultimately be held accountable for ensuring that the IANA functions are carried out appropriately? Please include verbatim text amendments to Part 1 if you believe that would be appropriate to clarify this point.


Alissa



  Best regards

  Wolf-Ulrich



  From: Alissa Cooper 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:20 PM
  To: WUKnoben 
  Cc: ICG 
  Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action item 2, subteam slide 3

  Hi Wolf-Ulrich, 

    On Sep 23, 2015, at 5:51 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:

    All,
    following the ICG call today, I have formulated two questions to CWG (to be inserted in the total list of questions) for further amendments:

    6) The comments regarding PTI board fall 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. We note that the board composition and selection procedure have been extensively discussed within the CWG and should be elaborated in detail during the implementation planning.


    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.” However, 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.

  I would suggest being slightly more explicit about the change we are proposing. I would suggest the following in lieu of the paragraph above:

  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.” This phrasing implies that it is the PTI itself rather than the PTI board that will have "the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers.” However, from the underlying legal expertise (Sidley) we read the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers as being applied to the PTI board. We’d like to ask the CWG whether this interpretation is correct. If so, we would propose amending the sentence by replacing “and” with “who” as follows: “As a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors who have 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. The ICG deems a clarification being necessary on this point in the following way: 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 to the allocation of these responsibilities.

  I’m a bit confused by this question. It’s hard to believe the CWG would not want the responsibilities to be clearly allocated between the two boards. Furthermore, paragraph 1113 seems fairly explicit on this point: it is the role of the PTI board to ensure that PTI fulfills its responsibilities under the IANA functions contract with ICANN. Why doesn’t that answer the question? And if it doesn't, are we asking the CWG to amend their proposal? Or are we just asking the question so that we can understand the proposal better (as with the RZM question)? 

  Thanks,
  Alissa





    Best regards

    Wolf-Ulrich



    _______________________________________________
    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/20150923/15d30488/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list