[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Seun Ojedeji
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Dec 18 00:12:17 UTC 2014
Hi Greg,
First I will like to mention that going forward, I am still of the opinion
that a stewardship that is achieved through strong internal accountability
mechanism will be more efficient and practical.
Having said that, kindly find my response inset:
On 17 Dec 2014 21:49, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Okay noted, but.....
> - 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 activities listed below are quite enormous and will most likely
become a weekly affair if not daily. Looking at the activities and before i
make further suggestions/comments, I will just like to get one thing clear;
those activities are going to be made possible by the resources of the
operator right? (Most especially funding)
>
The decisionmaking methods of the MRT are still under discussion; what do
you think they should be?
>
I think determining the decision making method/process will be largely
dependent on what I have asked above which is the level of independence
that will exist between the contract awarder (MRT) and the contractor (IANA
operator).
Could you kindly clarify to me what possible resource sharing/exchange will
exist between the 2 parties?
Thanks
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> .· 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
>
> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> DONNA 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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] 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] 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]
>>> 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>DONNA 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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] 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] 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/20141218/3c371b2c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list