[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Wed Dec 17 13:01:01 UTC 2014
Eduardo
There is merit to this approach. We risk the purpose of the MRT by
being bogged down in representational issues. The MRT's limited mandate
does not warrant huge numbers of persons for the issues it has to
address. If there is a need for greater diversity then different
organizational representatives could hold "their" seat depending on the
issue at hand.
Our recent call on the MRT was very useful but perhaps we need to
clearly map out what the MRT is supposed to do and how and who will do
it. We could select two or three issues that the MRT has responsibility
for and understand how they would be addressed. For example, how would
the MRT address an issue escalated from the CSC; or, how would the MRT
decide that subsequent to a performance review the contract needed to be
rebid, etc. Once we have done that mapping it might become clearer who
needs to sit on the MRT.
We talk about stress testing the model as a whole but we also need to
better understand how its component parts would work in practice.
Matthew
On 12/16/2014 6:30 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
> Milton:
>
> Then maybe a better solution is to have one representative from each
> organization. That will give it a better balance and no issues
> regarding which organization gets how many seats.
>
> -ed
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:49 PM, 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:Lars-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
>
> Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo*D**ONNA AUSTIN*
> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager**
>
> *ARI REGISTRY SERVICES*
> Melbourne*|*Los Angeles
> *P*+1 310 890 9655 <tel:%2B1%20310%20890%209655>
> *P*+61 3 9866 3710 <tel:%2B61%203%209866%203710>
> *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 (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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
> --
> *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential
> and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the
> named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must
> not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received
> this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this
> message immediately.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141217/bc2206eb/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/20141217/bc2206eb/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list