[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Fri Dec 19 16:09:30 UTC 2014

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>  Greg and other CWG members:
>
>
>
> I am thinking more and more that the MRT should be almost completely
> orthogonal to the GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC policy making complex. Our mental
> model of what it is and who should be on it needs to be completely detached
> from the policy making apparatus. We might think of drawing representatives
> from the regional network operating groups (NOGs), from the IAB/IETEF/ISOC,
> with a leavening of registry operators and civil society and prominent
> public officials to ensure a public interest perspective.
>

Just to mention that i disagree with this view, members of the MRT should
be drawn from the SO/ACs which is a known multistakeholder community but
the activities of MRT is what needs to be all inclusive and not
representative. The activities of the MRT needs to be completely
non-representational as much as possible. The charter of MRT should make
that clear distinction and on a lighter note, like i mentioned during the
rfp3 call, maybe the name MRT is also putting too much weight on
representation ;)

Thanks

Cheers!

>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:22 PM
> *To:* Christopher Wilkinson
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
>
>
>
> Christopher,
>
>
>
> I don't think a 3 1/2 page chart is excessively complex, and I would note
> that the ALAC proposal also has an MRT-like structure, which will face many
> of the same issues.  Up to this point, one of the concerns has been the
> relative lack of detail about some of the elements of the proposal.  I
> think it's reasonable to address those concerns.
>
>
>
> Can you shed some light on the basis and thinking behind your prediction
> that when this proposal reaches the ICG, "much of all that will disappear"?
> And what do you think would take its place?
>
>
>
> As to whether it would take a week to review and respond to the MRT
> "structural analysis," I would suggest the following maxim "Don't let the
> perfect be the enemy of the good." (or, if you are a Sheryl Sandberg fan,
> "Done is better than perfect.")
>
>
>
> Of course, if you have a proposal that is so straightforward and elegant
> in its simplicity that looking at this level of detail before adopting it
> would be unnecessary, I'm sure that I am not alone in welcoming the
> presentation of such a proposal.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>      *Gregory S. Shatan **|* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *666 Third Avenue **|** New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> *
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <
> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>
>  Greg: I think that all comes under my general comment about excessive
> complexity. including the thought that when all these CWG proposals reaches
> the ICG, much of all that will disappear.
>
>
>
> Really, it would take me a week to respond completely and responsibly to
> your request, that which I am increasingly convinced would be a waste of
> time.
>
>
>
> Sorry. I may try again later.
>
>
>
> CW
>
>
>
>
>
> On 18 Dec 2014, at 18:23, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>   All:
>
>
>
> I strongly encourage everyone participating in this thread to contribute
> to the related RFP3 draft documents:
>
>
>
> MRT "Structural Analysis" Google Doc (
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1POnrfwYbviniyUC_vr4pGRZ-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M2yk/edit?usp=sharing
> )
>
> MRT Composition Strawman Matrix (
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa9PHvmJ0/edit?usp=sharing
> ).
>
>
>
> In particular, if you have had something to say about the composition of
> the MRT, please go the the Strawman and add your suggested composition of
> the MRT to the Strawman.
>
>
>
> Since our output will be documents, it is best for our input to be made in
> documents as well. There are a lot of good (or at least interesting) ideas
> here in this thread, but they will tend to remain "ideas" if they are not
> taken to the documents.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>    *Greg*
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Carlton Samuels <
> carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  This answer, IMHO, is a timely reminder of what is.
>
>
>
> I am ever bemused that reasonable men and women would continue to
> conflate, even confuse, two different concepts: ICANN, the corporation, is
> a different animal from ICANN, the multi-stakeholder organisation. The one
> has a different set of responsibilities from the other.
>
>
>
> It was a struggle for the At-Large to understand in conceptualising
> expected behaviour of an At-Large selected director.  Because we struggle
> with understanding the socialisation of an American corporation.  And the
> fealty of the directors of the Board of such an animal.
>
>
>
> We may need ole Foghorn Leghorn's help here.  But it is time enough to
> learn this.
>
>
>
> -Carlton
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>  Hi all,
>
>
>
> We looked into this and noted that the Continuity & Contingency Plan is
> confidential and cannot be distributed.
>
>
>
> Notes, transcripts, and recordings for RFP4 call are available here:
> https://community.icann.org/x/MYcQAw
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Grace
>
>
>
> *From: *Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM
> *To: *Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
>
>
>
> Hi Avri,
>
> This was an action item for the staff from the call on 25th November. I
> believe they have already put in a request for the document with the IANA
> staff. Maybe Grace or Marika can update us on the request.
>
> "*ACTION staff : Ask IANA staff to share details on 7.3 that might be
> available for the public and/or online*"
>
> On 17 Dec 2014 17:29, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
> Is that 'transition to a "successor  contractor" plan' available to the
> CWG?
>
> avri
>
> On 17-Dec-14 05:26, Matthew Shears wrote:
>
> Alan
>
> Section C.7 in the current contract addresses issues of continuity of
> operations - particularly C.7.3, according to which ICANN should have a
> transition to a "successor
> contractor" plan in place at the moment
>
> Matthew
>
> On 12/17/2014 3:38 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
>  As someone whose ICANN 'job" is supporting/defending the needs of
> Internet users, I will point out that security and stability of the IANA
> functions is of paramount importance for the ALAC as well.
>
> I look forward to the seeing how that can be assured in a potentially
> disruptive switch of the IANA operator where it may be that there is no
> continuity of either staff or systems.
>
> Alan
>
> At 15/12/2014 03:16 PM, Donna Austin wrote:
>
>
>  All
>
> I largely agree with Christopher. I think we are creating complexity where
> it does not necessarily need to be, but as we are here I want to reiterate
> a few comments I made on the RFP 3 call earlier today, and these comments
> come from a gTLD registry operator perspective:
>
> ·         Operational stability and reliability of the IANA service is
> imperative to the business operations of registry operators and as such
> this should be a critical consideration in any discussions.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>   _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141219/259aedb9/attachment-0001.html>