[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Wed Dec 17 15:17:34 UTC 2014
Hi,
I think things are getting confounded.
I can't see the MRT doing the daily one person job that is done by
NTIA. I think of that as a Contract Co, adminstrative task. The MRT is
an oversight body, not the adminstrator
I see the MRT being responsible for review and exception based oversight
of the entire IANA function, with at least relation to names, being
done properly on a myriad of axis from operational to policy
implementation going through stability and security of the DNS and the
deployment of whatever technical changes may be required as time goes
on, and &c. this is in additon to dealing with any issue escalated by
the CSC and issues that may be handed to it by appeals decisions. And of
course deciding on contract allocation.
It is for these reason that I believe it needs broad and diverse
representation. I beleive finding the balance between that and lean is
our challenge.
avri
On 17-Dec-14 08:47, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that the MRT
> must be globally inclusive and geographically representative even if
> what it is replacing is currently done by one person at NTIA. Is that
> correct? If so, then I think we need to figure out how to do that
> without creating a bloated bureaucratic structure that will be
> expensive and slower than what we have now?
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:*Lars-Erik.Forsberg at ec.europa.eu
> [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg at ec.europa.eu]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:49 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; mueller at syr.edu; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Cc:* Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch
> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> We can continue to discuss for ever on e-mail on this issue. My point
> is simple. To be accepted by all, it has to be globally inclusive,
> both in terms of stakeholder composition and geographical inclusion.
>
> Erik
>
>
>
> *From:*Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
> <mailto:[mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 15, 2014 9:08 PM
> *To:* Milton L Mueller; FORSBERG Lars-Erik (CNECT);
> 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
> *Cc:* 'Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch'
> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
>
>
>
> To add to Milton's comments, I thought we had agreed to avoid going
> down the path where the new entity (entities) become ever expanding
> organizations like ICANN has done. The risks are big if we allow that
> to happen.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *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:* Monday, December 15, 2014 12:49 PM
> *To:* 'Lars-Erik.Forsberg at ec.europa.eu'; 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
> *Cc:* 'Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch'
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
>
>
>
> 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:[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
> *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 (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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141217/7e26f977/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/20141217/7e26f977/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list