[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

[Gomes, Chuck]

Alan,

In the existing proposal is MRT the policy enforcing body or is CST?  The reason I ask is because CST would have the contract that would provide the authority to enforce the contract.

Putting that aside, I would qualify your statement as follows: “policy enforcing body for policy related to the IANA naming functions”.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:42 PM
To: Lindeberg, Elise; Lise Fuhr; 'Donna Austin'; 'Christopher Wilkinson'; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Balanced MS representation is essential. Although the MRT is not a policy setting body, it IS a policy enforcing body and as such, it needs balanced representation.  Alan

At 17/12/2014 09:04 AM, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:


Dear all,

I agree with the comments from Milton, Lise and Dona on a flexible solution and avoiding swelling out of proportions  - but I don’t see an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT. The CWG is working on the basis of a model with a distinction between the Customer Standing Committee  (CSC)  - who will evaluating IANA reports and performance of the IANA function for the community at large, based on a direct customer relationship and the Multistakeholder Review team (MRT), who need to be real Multistakeholder with en equally balanced representation from the community at large. Operational stability, reliability of the IANA service and the actual placing of the IANA function is of the outmost importance for the whole community.

Best

Elise
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141218/12f2cf03/attachment-0001.html>