[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Tue Dec 16 18:47:45 UTC 2014

Completely agree – the role should be boring.

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz

Reduce your environmental footprint.  Print only if necessary.
Follow Neustar:   [http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture.png]  Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc>   [http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture%20(1)(1).png]  LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349>   [http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture%20(2).png]  Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustarinc>
________________________________
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 1:04 PM
To: Donna Austin; Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Hi All,

I wouldn’t disagree with Donna’s comments.  But I suspect most of the concerns about making sure we have representation are to do with the central role of the MRT as the current proposed wording has it.  People are going to want an entity with so much power (or seen to have the power) to have representative and balanced membership with their constituency in control, of course.  It is not that people want to politicise the committee, it is that they already see it as strategic, and therefore needing control.

It is a serious concern that I have got with the draft:  that we seem to be setting up bodies with central and decisive roles.  The proposal hardly (if at all) refers to the MRT engaging with the wider community.  That is a problem.

I’d say that the MRT should provide the framework for convening the wider stakeholder dialogue, not replace it.  I certainly would not be happy with a committee that made momentous decisions like calling in the contract and where Nominet did not have a say.  Even having a European ccTLD manager on the committee in my mind would not necessarily be enough.  None of its decisions should be taken away from the framework of discussion with, and developing consensus among, the wider stakeholder community.  And actually I’d say that the MRT role should be almost completely very boring.

Until we recognise this and get the wording right, we are going to have turf-warfare on membership.

Cheers

Martin

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Donna Austin
Sent: 15 December 2014 20:16
To: Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

All

I largely agree with Christopher. I think we are creating complexity where it does not necessarily need to be, but as we are here I want to reiterate a few comments I made on the RFP 3 call earlier today, and these comments come from a gTLD registry operator perspective:

·        Operational stability and reliability of the IANA service is imperative to the business operations of registry operators and as such this should be a critical consideration in any discussions.

·        One of the four principles identified in the NTIA announcement is: Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and I’m concerned that this is being sometimes forgotten in our discussion.

·        As direct customers of the IANA service as it relates to naming, I believe that registries should have an important voice in any discussion regarding performance, RFP and any resulting discussions about whether the IANA function should, at any time in the future, be moved out of ICANN.

·        I don’t believe that ‘equal’ representation, ie 5 from the GAC, 5 from ALAC, 5 from the ccNSO, results in a balanced MRT, particularly when the MRT comprises 21+ members. Alignments or alliances are formed based on particular views and opinions, or ultimate end games.

·        In this context, I do believe that there is an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT.

Thanks,

Donna

[Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin at ariservices.com>
W  www.ariservices.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ariservices.com_&d=AwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=CiZewCvDnKdQSl41YbT__SvP8oVmGkl-fdXAnLXX7HY&s=HVNFQk4pMlpTei34MYLbiMuV1O-u1wGBizWiKNO8pc0&e=>

Follow us on Twitter<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ARIservices&d=AwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=CiZewCvDnKdQSl41YbT__SvP8oVmGkl-fdXAnLXX7HY&s=xKfYjf5bvCz0x6WrbZ-I_W8dXp54Jv_B9bt2lOlWsXU&e=>

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 Christopher Wilkinson
Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 11:00 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Importance: High

Good evening:

I fear that Milton is engaging in rather naïve wishful thinking.

1.         I am not at all convinced that we need anything like the complexities that have been invented by CWG for the NTIA transition, but having done so …

2.         The vast attention that has been addressed to this relatively simple issue has doubtless attracted the conviction of stakeholders, who before knew not otherwise, that participation in control of the process has become indispensable. In that context, today, a 'non policy making entity' does not exist. If you do not want to multiply policy making, you need fewer entities, not more.

3.         With due respect to Milton, the CWG and other stakeholders concerned, recent experience is that when you ask governments how they wish to be represented, they will let you know.

Regards

CW

On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:49, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:

Lars-Erik
We need to be realistic in our approach to MRT composition. 5 GAC reps, not to mention the 5 regional reps of all the other ACs that will inevitably follow from such an approach, makes no sense given the function of the MRT. It represents a dysfunctional swelling of the MRT to unwieldy proportions, and a politicization of its function. The purpose of MRT is not to optimize ease of representation for the GAC, nor is it to maximize “global engagement” in a non-policy making entity. It is a contracting authority for the IANA functions. Global engagement comes in the policy process. We need to stop thinking of the MRT as something that represents diverse policy views. I see no reason why a single GAC representative is not sufficient to provide the kind of oversight needed to determine whether governments think the IANA contractor is doing an acceptable job. If the GAC can aggregate its views enough to elect a single chair, or to write a single communique, why can it not select a single MRT representative?

--MM

From: Lars-Erik.Forsberg at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg at ec.europa.eu> [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Erik.Forsberg at ec.europa.eu>]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM
To: Milton L Mueller; Donna.Austin at ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin at ariservices.com>; gurcharya at gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Cc: Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Hi Milton,
True, GAC is an advisory body but I think there are a lot of other reasons for the 5 members, not only that public authorities have signed up and participates in the  multistakeholder community but also for reasons of global engagement and geographical balance,e not only in GAC but in the community as a whole…it is not as if Africa,  Latin America or even Asia were overrepresented in the other constituencies of ICANN…
Erik

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: Sunday, December 14, 2014 6:50 PM
To: Donna Austin; Guru Acharya; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Donna:
I agree with you that gTLD registries should have parity with ccTLD registries in the MRT. In our original discussions of this composition, I proposed 5 and 5. But we just didn’t know how to create that parity easily given the GNSO’s 4- stakeholder group structure. I would encourage you think of ways to do that in ways that would be acceptable to the GNSO as a whole. Perhaps 2 from the RySG instead of 1 if you can get the other SGs to accept it.

Guru:
I would strongly oppose putting 5 GAC seats on the MRT. My initial idea was actually to have one ALAC, GAC and SSAC representative on the MRT. GAC is a policy advisory committee, so is ALAC. It makes absolutely no sense to have the MRT stacked with entities whose main concern is policy. Further, many governments are direct owners or licensors of their ccTLD so they would be represented when and if IANA functions affects them directly.

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.

--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<mailto: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

<image002.png>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<mailto:donna.austin at ariservices.com>
W  www.ariservices.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ariservices.com_&d=AwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=CiZewCvDnKdQSl41YbT__SvP8oVmGkl-fdXAnLXX7HY&s=HVNFQk4pMlpTei34MYLbiMuV1O-u1wGBizWiKNO8pc0&e=>

Follow us on Twitter<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ARIservices&d=AwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=CiZewCvDnKdQSl41YbT__SvP8oVmGkl-fdXAnLXX7HY&s=xKfYjf5bvCz0x6WrbZ-I_W8dXp54Jv_B9bt2lOlWsXU&e=>

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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=CiZewCvDnKdQSl41YbT__SvP8oVmGkl-fdXAnLXX7HY&s=byCwrA-snl7Ko3De-C92XbVAWRPryT9MIkfNjaCh1fI&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141216/88cd276c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: image008.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141216/88cd276c/image008-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1025 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141216/88cd276c/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 988 bytes
Desc: image010.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141216/88cd276c/image010-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.png
Type: image/png
Size: 724 bytes
Desc: image011.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141216/88cd276c/image011-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image012.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5489 bytes
Desc: image012.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141216/88cd276c/image012-0001.png>