<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
Not making, but insuring that the policy they made is handled
properly.<br>
<br>
Also they will be making decisions about the actions of Contract
Co., ie. the basis for renewal, the content of any RFP &c.
these will have a very strong policy component.<br>
<br>
I see this as a task of the policy making bodies.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14-Dec-14 11:51, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49498CAE@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>This would make sense if the MRT was
making policy, but they are not.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Chuck</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Avri Doria<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, December 13, 2014 1:29 PM<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,<br>
<br>
In this, the idea was that the policy making bodies, ie. the 2
naming SOs, should have the majority representation.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
avri</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 13-Dec-14 13:06, Guru Acharya wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Avri, </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:10 PM,
Avri Doria <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>>
wrote:</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,<br>
<br>
As one of those contributing to this draft who
suggested this formula, I can give my thinking:<br>
<br>
1. We should not be looking for numerical parity
between the two policy makers, cc and g, but rather
looking at their organizational structure.
<br>
<br>
ccTLD policy organizes into regions, (5)<br>
gTLD policy organizes into Stakeholder Group (4)<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
avri </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 13-Dec-14 12:15, Donna
Austin wrote:</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Milton,
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Donna</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part2.07040009.08060509@acm.org"
alt="Description: Description:
Description: ARI Logo" height="57"
width="48"><b>DONNA AUSTIN</b><br>
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>ARI REGISTRY SERVICES</b><br>
Melbourne <b>|</b> Los Angeles <br>
<b>P</b> +1 310 890 9655<br>
<b>P</b> +61 3 9866 3710<br>
<b>E </b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com"
target="_blank">donna.austin@ariservices.com</a><u><br>
</u><b>W </b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ariservices.com/"
target="_blank">www.ariservices.com</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Follow us on
</i><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://twitter.com/ARIservices"
target="_blank"><i>Twitter</i></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>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.</i></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Milton L Mueller<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, 12 December 2014 5:42
AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Guru Acharya; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"
target="_blank">
cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship]
Composition of MRT</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here’s an idea that some of
us in NCSG are kicking around</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We propose a 21-member team
with 2 non-voting liaisons, with some kind of
supermajority voting construct (⅔ or
<span>⅘</span>) 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="14a44bf3936f13ac__MailEndCompose"></a> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Guru Acharya<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 12, 2014
6:07 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"
target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship]
Composition of MRT</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As reference, the
composition of ICG is as follows:</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">ALAC x 2</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">ASO x 1</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">ccNSO x 4</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">GAC x 5</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">GNSO x 3</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">gTLD Registries x 2</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">ICC/BASIS x 1</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">IAB x 2</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">IETF x 2</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">ISOC x 2</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">NRO x 2</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">RSSAC x 2 </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">SSAC x 2</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3) How do we include
ccTLDs that are not ccNSO members?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">4) How do we ensure
membership from developing countries
(not government, but civil society or
technical community) - is some sort of
affirmative action possible?</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
<pre>_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre>CWG-Stewardship mailing list</pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>