[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

[Milton L Mueller]

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] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM
To: 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141212/800e7e8a/attachment.html>