<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Alan,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In the existing proposal is MRT the policy enforcing body or is CST? The reason I ask is because CST would have the contract that would provide the authority
to enforce the contract.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Putting that aside, I would qualify your statement as follows: “</span>policy enforcing body
<span style="color:#00B0F0">for policy related to the IANA naming functions</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Alan Greenberg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:42 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Lindeberg, Elise; Lise Fuhr; 'Donna Austin'; 'Christopher Wilkinson'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Balanced MS representation is essential. Although the MRT is not a policy setting body, it IS a policy enforcing body and as such, it needs balanced representation. Alan<br>
<br>
At 17/12/2014 09:04 AM, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all, <br>
<br>
I agree with the comments from Milton, Lise and Dona on a flexible solution and avoiding swelling out of proportions - but I don’t see an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT. The CWG is working
on the basis of a model with a distinction between the <u>Customer Standing Committee (CSC)</u> - who will evaluating IANA reports and performance of the IANA function for the community at large, based on a direct customer relationship and the
<b><u>Multistakeholder</u></b><u> Review team (MRT),</u> who need to be <b>real Multistakeholder</b> with en equally balanced representation from the community at large. Operational stability, reliability of the IANA service and the actual placing of the IANA
function is of the outmost importance for the whole community.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Elise<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>