[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

[Greg Shatan]

Avri:

I'm almost completely aligned with you.  I would only say that I think that
the "daily one person job done by NTIA" will become a CSC task (not a
Contract Co. task).  Other than that, +1.

Greg

*Gregory S. Shatan **|* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*666 Third Avenue **|** New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> *

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>  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 <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]
> *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
> <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]
> *Sent:* Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM
> *To:* Milton L Mueller; Donna.Austin at ariservices.com; gurcharya at gmail.com;
> cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Cc:* 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
> <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
> *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
> <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
>
>
>
> [image: 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
> *W*  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
> <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
> <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 listCWG-Stewardship at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141217/6ff282ed/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/20141217/6ff282ed/attachment-0001.png>