[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Wed Dec 17 15:43:59 UTC 2014

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM, 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 thought contract co is supposed to be shelf entity with no daily activity
and would only suffice when its time to formerly award contract

>
> 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.
>

Hmm...when you say entire IANA function i will assume you are only
referring to the names part. On that note; i will like to be sure to get
your point about MRT's role; are you implying that going forward, the
function operator will run its requests through MRT who then put a seal OR
the operator will be required to always put the MRT in CC of its actions
and if MRT finds something non-compliance in nature then MRT makes decision
whether to move the IANA function or not?

Its important to clarify the specific roles of the MRT so that we can
simulate it in practice, perhaps that will help further improve
understanding/consensus on the current proposal

Regards

>
> 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
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141217/1e13f51b/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/20141217/1e13f51b/attachment-0001.png>