[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed Dec 17 20:49:33 UTC 2014
Seun asked:
- What are the daily activities for MRT and how does it get exercised and
decisions made on them
GSS: The MRT has no daily activities.
- What are the occasional activities of the MRT and how do they get
exercised and decided upon
The activities of the MRT are in the Draft Proposal, as follows (some are
occasional and some periodic). The decisionmaking methods of the MRT are
still under discussion; what do you think they should be?
.· Contracting decisions, including:
o Identifying terms for the agreement with the IANA Functions Operator for
the execution of the naming-related functions;
o Managing a rebidding (RFP) process in the case of performance
deficiencies and as part of a regular rebidding process;
o Selection of the IANA Functions Operator for naming-related Functions
pursuant to any rebidding (RFP) process;
o Renewal or termination of the IANA Functions Contract for naming-related
functions and;
o Selection of professional advisors to draft / modify contract language;
· Budget Review
o The MRT would meet annually with ICANN staff during the course of the
development of ICANN’s annual budget to review and discuss ICANN’s proposed
budget for the IANA Naming Functions and to discuss funding for
improvements to the IANA Naming Functions and the introduction of new
services, as deemed necessary by the MRT
· Addressing any escalation issues raised by the CSC
o Communicating with the IANA Functions Operator and/or directly affected
parties to address such issues; and
o Engaging in other enforcement behavior up to and including initiating a
termination for breach and/or rebidding (RFP) procedure
· Performing certain elements of administration currently set
forth in the IANA Functions Contract and currently being carried out by the
NTIA
o C.2.12.a Program Manager (evaluation of).
o C.3.2 Secure Systems Notification (evaluation of).
o C.4.1 Meetings – (perform) Program reviews and site visits shall occur
annually.
o C.4.5 (participate in the development of, receive and review) Customer
Service Survey (CSS)
o C.4.4 (receive and review) Performance Standards Reports
o C.4.6 (receive and review) Final Report
o C.4.7 (provide) Inspection and Acceptance
o C.5.1 Audit Data – (receive and review annual report)
o C.5.2 (receive and review) Root Zone Management Audit Data
o C.5.3 External Auditor (ensure performance of, receive and review
results)
o C. 6 Conflict of interest requirements (annual validation that the
contractor is meeting stated requirements)
o C. 7 Continuity of Operations (annual validation that the contractor is
meeting stated requirements)
*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 Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> This is a practical example of what we are going to experience with the
> MRT; a political avenue where act of multistakeholder will only exist on
> paper and not in practice. I asked on the rfp3 call and I will try again
> here using 2 questions:
>
> - What are the daily activities for MRT and how does it get exercised and
> decisions made on them
> - What are the occasional activities of the MRT and how do they get
> exercised and decided upon
>
> Hopefully we get those words that will make MRT less attractive (perhaps
> by removing contract co/RFP? )
>
> Cheers!
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 16 Dec 2014 19:04, "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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] *On Behalf Of *Donna Austin
>> *Sent:* 15 December 2014 20:16
>> *To:* Christopher Wilkinson; 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
>>
>>
>>
>> [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 *Christopher Wilkinson
>> *Sent:* Monday, 15 December 2014 11:00 AM
>> *To:* 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> 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]
>> *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
>>
>>
>>
>> <image002.png>*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 list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://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/20141217/8227c476/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141217/8227c476/image002-0001.png>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list