<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
I think things are getting confounded.<br>
<br>
I can't see the MRT doing the daily one person job that is done by
NTIA. I think of that as a Contract Co, adminstrative task. The
MRT is an oversight body, not the adminstrator<br>
<br>
I see the MRT being responsible for review and exception based
oversight of the entire IANA function, with at least relation to
names, being done properly on a myriad of axis from operational to
policy implementation going through stability and security of the
DNS and the deployment of whatever technical changes may be required
as time goes on, and &c. this is in additon to dealing with any
issue escalated by the CSC and issues that may be handed to it by
appeals decisions. And of course deciding on contract allocation.<br>
<br>
It is for these reason that I believe it needs broad and diverse
representation. I beleive finding the balance between that and lean
is our challenge.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17-Dec-14 08:47, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4949E1C1@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>Eric,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>If I understand you correctly, what
you are saying is that the MRT must be globally inclusive
and geographically representative even if what it is
replacing is currently done by one person at NTIA. Is that
correct? If so, then I think we need to figure out how to
do that without creating a bloated bureaucratic structure
that will be expensive and slower than what we have now?</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:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu">Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu">mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:49 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch">Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Dear all,
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">We can continue to
discuss for ever on e-mail on this issue. My point is
simple. To be accepted by all, it has to be globally
inclusive, both in terms of stakeholder composition and
geographical inclusion. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Erik</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span> Gomes,
Chuck
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]">[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]</a>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 15, 2014 9:08 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Milton L Mueller; FORSBERG Lars-Erik (CNECT);
'<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>'<br>
<b>Cc:</b> '<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch">Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch</a>'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>To add to Milton’s comments, I
thought we had agreed to avoid going down the path where the
new entity (entities) become ever expanding organizations
like ICANN has done. The risks are big if we allow that to
happen.</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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Milton L Mueller<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 15, 2014 12:49 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> '<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu">Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu</a>';
'<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>'<br>
<b>Cc:</b> '<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch">Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch</a>'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Lars-Erik</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>We need to be realistic in our
approach to MRT composition. 5 GAC reps, not to mention the
5 regional reps of all the other ACs that will inevitably
follow from such an approach, makes no sense given the
function of the MRT. It represents a dysfunctional swelling
of the MRT to unwieldy proportions, and a politicization of
its function. The purpose of MRT is not to optimize ease of
representation for the GAC, nor is it to maximize “global
engagement” in a non-policy making entity. It is a
contracting authority for the IANA functions. Global
engagement comes in the policy process. We need to stop
thinking of the MRT as something that represents diverse
policy views. I see no reason why a single GAC
representative is not sufficient to provide the kind of
oversight needed to determine whether governments think the
IANA contractor is doing an acceptable job. If the GAC can
aggregate its views enough to elect a single chair, or to
write a single communique, why can it not select a single
MRT representative?
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
<span>--MM</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu">Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:[mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu]">[mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu]</a>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Milton L Mueller; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com">Donna.Austin@ariservices.com</a>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com">gurcharya@gmail.com</a>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">
cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch">Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of
MRT</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Hi Milton,
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">True, GAC is an
advisory body but I think there are a lot of other reasons
for the 5 members, not only that public authorities have
signed up and participates in the multistakeholder
community but also for reasons of global engagement and
geographical balance,e not only in GAC but in the
community as a whole…it is not as if Africa, Latin
America or even Asia were overrepresented in the other
constituencies of ICANN…</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Erik</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"><span>cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span>
[</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"><span>mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Milton L Mueller<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, December 14, 2014 6:50 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Donna Austin; Guru Acharya; </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"><span>cwg-stewardship@icann.org</span></a><span><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of
MRT</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Donna:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I agree with you that gTLD
registries should have parity with ccTLD registries in the
MRT. In our original discussions of this composition, I
proposed 5 and 5. But we just didn’t know how to create
that parity easily given the GNSO’s 4- stakeholder group
structure. I would encourage you think of ways to do that
in ways that would be acceptable to the GNSO as a whole.
Perhaps 2 from the RySG instead of 1 if you can get the
other SGs to accept it. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Guru:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I would strongly oppose putting 5
GAC seats on the MRT. My initial idea was actually to have
one ALAC, GAC and SSAC representative on the MRT. GAC is a
policy advisory committee, so is ALAC. It makes absolutely
no sense to have the MRT stacked with entities whose main
concern is policy. Further, many governments are direct
owners or licensors of their ccTLD so they would be
represented when and if IANA functions affects them
directly. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I think people are still getting
confused about the role of policy and implementation, and
viewing the MRT as a way to intervene in policy. This is
very dangerous and needs to be discouraged. MRT is
concerned with who the IANA contractor should be and with
the accuracy, security, efficiency and stability with
which the names IANA functions are implemented. That is
all. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>--MM</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
Donna Austin [</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com"><span>mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com</span></a><span>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:16 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Milton L Mueller; Guru Acharya; </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"><span>cwg-stewardship@icann.org</span></a><span><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of
MRT</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Milton,
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">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.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Thanks,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Donna</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img
src="cid:part15.04050401.04020905@acm.org"
alt="Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo"
height="57" width="48"><b><span lang="EN-AU">D</span></b><b><span
lang="EN-AU">ONNA AUSTIN</span></b><span
lang="EN-AU"><br>
</span><span lang="EN-AU">Policy and Industry Affairs
Manager</span><b><span lang="EN-AU"></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-AU">ARI REGISTRY
SERVICES</span></b><span lang="EN-AU"><br>
</span><span lang="EN-AU">Melbourne</span><span
lang="EN-AU">
</span><b><span lang="EN-AU">|</span></b><span
lang="EN-AU">
</span><span lang="EN-AU">Los Angeles
</span><span lang="EN-AU"><br>
</span><b><span lang="EN-AU">P</span></b><span
lang="EN-AU">
</span><span lang="EN-AU">+1 310 890 9655<br>
</span><b><span lang="EN-AU">P</span></b><span
lang="EN-AU">
</span><span lang="EN-AU">+61 3 9866 3710<br>
</span><b><span lang="EN-AU">E</span></b><b><span
lang="EN-AU">
</span></b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com"><span
lang="EN-AU">donna.austin@ariservices.com</span></a><u><span
lang="EN-AU"><br>
</span></u><b><span lang="EN-AU">W</span></b><b><span
lang="EN-AU">
</span></b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ariservices.com/"><span lang="EN-AU">www.ariservices.com</span></a><span
lang="EN-AU"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-AU">Follow us on
</span></i><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://twitter.com/ARIservices"><i><span
lang="EN-AU">Twitter</span></i></a><span
lang="EN-AU"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-AU">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.</span></i><span
lang="EN-AU"></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"><span>cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span>
[</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"><span>mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span>]
<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; </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"><span>cwg-stewardship@icann.org</span></a><span><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of
MRT</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Here’s an idea that some of us in
NCSG are kicking around</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>We propose a 21-member team with
2 non-voting liaisons, with some kind of supermajority
voting construct (⅔ or
</span><span>⅘</span><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.</span><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"></a><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"><span>cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span>
[</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"><span>mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Guru Acharya<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"><span>cwg-stewardship@icann.org</span></a><span><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of
MRT</span></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>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>