[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

[Guru Acharya]

Hi Avri,

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?



On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>  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
>
>
>
> [image: 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
> *W*  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
> <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 (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
> <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?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141213/76dd9298/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/20141213/76dd9298/attachment.png>