[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

As one of those contributing to this draft who suggested this formula, I
can give my thinking:

1.  We should not be looking for numerical parity between the two policy
makers, cc and g, but rather looking at their organizational structure.

ccTLD policy organizes into regions, (5)
gTLD policy organizes into Stakeholder Group (4)

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.

avri

On 13-Dec-14 12:15, Donna Austin wrote:
>
> Milton,
>
>  
>
> 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.
>
>  
>
> 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.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Thanks,
>
>  
>
> Donna
>
>  
>
> Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo*D**ONNA AUSTIN*
> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager**
>
>  
>
> *ARI REGISTRY SERVICES*
> Melbourne*|*Los Angeles
> *P*  +1 310 890 9655
> *P*  +61 3 9866 3710
> *E**  *donna.austin at ariservices.com <mailto:donna.austin at ariservices.com>_
> _*W**  *www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/>
>
>  
>
> /Follow us on //Twitter/ <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
>
>  
>
> /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./
>
>  
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller
> *Sent:* Friday, 12 December 2014 5:42 AM
> *To:* Guru Acharya; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
>
>  
>
> 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 (2/3 or 4/5) 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>
> [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 <mailto: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?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141213/93d0b3d1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141213/93d0b3d1/attachment.png>