[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Sat Dec 13 18:28:36 UTC 2014

Hi,

In this, the idea was that the policy making bodies, ie. the 2 naming
SOs, should have the majority representation.

avri

On 13-Dec-14 13:06, Guru Acharya wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>>
>>      
>>
>>     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>
>>     [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
>>     <mailto: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>
>>     [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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>     CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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/20141213/935028b5/attachment-0001.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/20141213/935028b5/attachment-0001.png>