[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

[Greg Shatan]

Seun:

The MRT's responsibilities go well beyond reviewing processes (none of
which are currently automated at this point, I believe, though some
apparently have automation ready to go) and reports.  I don't think it
helps the dialogue to mischaracterize the roles being transitioned from the
NTIA to the MRT.  In any event, since there is highly likely to be an
MRT-like body in any proposal, it will need to be funded regardless.

I don't understand your first or third questions.  I believe the answer to
the second is the global multistakeholder community.

Greg

On Sunday, December 14, 2014, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  For the most part that is true Seun.  If community developed policy is
> not the 100% source of IANA implementation of TLDs, especially for gTLDs,
> then an appeal should be filed.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 14, 2014 1:11 PM
> *To:* Milton L Mueller
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
>
>
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 14 Dec 2014 18:50, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think people are still getting confused about the role of policy and
> implementation, and viewing the MRT as a way to intervene in policy. This
> is very dangerous and needs to be discouraged. MRT is concerned with who
> the IANA contractor should be and with the accuracy, security, efficiency
> and stability with which the names IANA functions are implemented. That is
> all.
> >
> >
> And what will MRT use to make that decision? and on whose behalf will they
> be making such decisions?
> What accountability will MRT be ensuring if community developed policy is
> not the 100% source of IANA implementation/operation. You are basically
> saying that, the proposed overreaching structure should be funded (with end
> users money) just to review automated processes/reports.
>
> Cheers!
> >
> > --MM
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Donna Austin [mailto:Donna.Austin at ariservices.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:16 PM
> > To: Milton L Mueller; Guru Acharya; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> > Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > DONNA 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
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 (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?
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20141214/cbdfcc07/attachment-0001.html>