[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Sat Dec 13 18:28:36 UTC 2014
Hi,
In this, the idea was that the policy making bodies, ie. the 2 naming
SOs, should have the majority representation.
avri
On 13-Dec-14 13:06, Guru Acharya wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> I presume that GAC would also like to organise according to the 5
> regions, as it did for the ICG. Would 5 seats for GAC be an acceptable
> modification driven by the logic that you just presented?
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As one of those contributing to this draft who suggested this
> formula, I can give my thinking:
>
> 1. We should not be looking for numerical parity between the two
> policy makers, cc and g, but rather looking at their
> organizational structure.
>
> ccTLD policy organizes into regions, (5)
> gTLD policy organizes into Stakeholder Group (4)
>
> 2. When thinking of gTLD policy, it is the GNSO as a whole that
> needs to be represented in the MRT. The registries have a
> prioirty in the CSC which focuses on operational issues. I see
> the MRT as dealing with the Policy aspects and these are GNSO not
> just Registry Stakeholder Group.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 13-Dec-14 12:15, Donna Austin wrote:
>>
>> Milton,
>>
>>
>>
>> Speaking as the RySG representative on the CWG: as direct
>> customers of the IANA function, gTLD registries would seek at a
>> minimum parity, in your proposal, for five members from the
>> ccNSO. Your current composition is inherently imbalanced by
>> providing for only 1 gTLD registry operator compared to 5 ccTLD
>> registry operators.
>>
>>
>>
>> While ccTLDs have in the past been the primary customer of the
>> IANA naming services, the delegation of more than 400 new gTLDs
>> means that this is no longer the case. If you can find rationale
>> to have 5 ccTLD registry operators in your proposed composition
>> of the MRT, I see no reason why this rationale should not be
>> extended to gTLD registry operators.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Donna
>>
>>
>>
>> Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo*D**ONNA AUSTIN*
>> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager**
>>
>>
>>
>> *ARI REGISTRY SERVICES*
>> Melbourne*|*Los Angeles
>> *P* +1 310 890 9655
>> *P* +61 3 9866 3710
>> *E** *donna.austin at ariservices.com
>> <mailto:donna.austin at ariservices.com>_
>> _*W** *www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> /Follow us on //Twitter/ <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
>>
>>
>>
>> /The information contained in this communication is intended for
>> the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may
>> contain legally privileged and confidential information and if
>> you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy,
>> distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have
>> received this communication in error, please delete all copies
>> from your system and notify us immediately./
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton
>> L Mueller
>> *Sent:* Friday, 12 December 2014 5:42 AM
>> *To:* Guru Acharya; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
>>
>>
>>
>> Here’s an idea that some of us in NCSG are kicking around
>>
>>
>>
>> We propose a 21-member team with 2 non-voting liaisons, with some
>> kind of supermajority voting construct (⅔ or ⅘) for key
>> decisions. The composition is structured and balanced to ensure
>> that the MRT embodies a strong commitment to efficient and
>> neutral administration of the DNS root zone rather than any
>> specific policy agenda. Safeguards must be in place to ensure
>> that it is independent of ICANN corporate but also cannot be
>> captured or unduly influenced by governments, intergovernmental
>> organizations, or specific economic interests. The MRT should
>> draw most of its ICANN community members from ICANN’s GNSO and
>> ccNSO, with the GNSO forwarding 4 (1 member for each Stakeholder
>> Group), and the ccNSO forwarding 5 (1 for each world region). The
>> root server operators should also be represented on the MRT with
>> 2 positions. Each ICANN Advisory Committee (GAC, SSAC and ALAC)
>> should appoint 2 members. There should be 4 independent experts
>> external to the ICANN community selected through a public
>> nomination process administered by [who? ISOC? IEEE?] but subject
>> to conflict of interest constraints. Additionally, 2 non-voting
>> but fully participating liaisons from the other operational
>> communities should be appointed (by ASO for numbers and by IAB
>> for protocols) to facilitate coordination across the different
>> IANA functions. MRT members should be appointed for limited terms
>> sized appropriate to the contract renewal cycle.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Guru
>> Acharya
>> *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM
>> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
>>
>>
>>
>> The CWG is yet to decide the composition of the MRT. I was hoping
>> someone could throw a strawman composition at us so that
>> discussions can be initiated.
>>
>>
>>
>> As reference, the composition of ICG is as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>> ALAC x 2
>>
>> ASO x 1
>>
>> ccNSO x 4
>>
>> GAC x 5
>>
>> GNSO x 3
>>
>> gTLD Registries x 2
>>
>> ICC/BASIS x 1
>>
>> IAB x 2
>>
>> IETF x 2
>>
>> ISOC x 2
>>
>> NRO x 2
>>
>> RSSAC x 2
>>
>> SSAC x 2
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Should members of non-naming communities (like IETF and ASO)
>> be a part of MRT since our proposal only relates to the IANA for
>> the names community? For example, the CRISP (numbers community)
>> draft proposal does not envision names community members in its
>> oversight mechanism.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) Which stakeholder groups should be included beyond the ICANN
>> community structures so that the MRT is representative of the
>> global-multistakeholder community? For example, should IGF-MAG
>> members have a place?
>>
>>
>>
>> 3) How do we include ccTLDs that are not ccNSO members?
>>
>>
>>
>> 4) How do we ensure membership from developing countries (not
>> government, but civil society or technical community) - is some
>> sort of affirmative action possible?
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141213/935028b5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141213/935028b5/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list