[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Thu Dec 18 21:22:29 UTC 2014

Christopher,

I don't think a 3 1/2 page chart is excessively complex, and I would note
that the ALAC proposal also has an MRT-like structure, which will face many
of the same issues.  Up to this point, one of the concerns has been the
relative lack of detail about some of the elements of the proposal.  I
think it's reasonable to address those concerns.

Can you shed some light on the basis and thinking behind your prediction
that when this proposal reaches the ICG, "much of all that will disappear"?
And what do you think would take its place?

As to whether it would take a week to review and respond to the MRT
"structural analysis," I would suggest the following maxim "Don't let the
perfect be the enemy of the good." (or, if you are a Sheryl Sandberg fan,
"Done is better than perfect.")

Of course, if you have a proposal that is so straightforward and elegant in
its simplicity that looking at this level of detail before adopting it
would be unnecessary, I'm sure that I am not alone in welcoming the
presentation of such a proposal.

Best regards,

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 Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <
lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>
> Greg: I think that all comes under my general comment about excessive
> complexity. including the thought that when all these CWG proposals reaches
> the ICG, much of all that will disappear.
>
> Really, it would take me a week to respond completely and responsibly to
> your request, that which I am increasingly convinced would be a waste of
> time.
>
> Sorry. I may try again later.
>
> CW
>
>
> On 18 Dec 2014, at 18:23, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All:
>
> I strongly encourage everyone participating in this thread to contribute
> to the related RFP3 draft documents:
>
> MRT "Structural Analysis" Google Doc (
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1POnrfwYbviniyUC_vr4pGRZ-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M2yk/edit?usp=sharing
> )
> MRT Composition Strawman Matrix (
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa9PHvmJ0/edit?usp=sharing
> ).
>
> In particular, if you have had something to say about the composition of
> the MRT, please go the the Strawman and add your suggested composition of
> the MRT to the Strawman.
>
> Since our output will be documents, it is best for our input to be made in
> documents as well. There are a lot of good (or at least interesting) ideas
> here in this thread, but they will tend to remain "ideas" if they are not
> taken to the documents.
>
> Thanks!
>
> *Greg*
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Carlton Samuels <
> carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This answer, IMHO, is a timely reminder of what is.
>>
>> I am ever bemused that reasonable men and women would continue to
>> conflate, even confuse, two different concepts: ICANN, the corporation, is
>> a different animal from ICANN, the multi-stakeholder organisation. The one
>> has a different set of responsibilities from the other.
>>
>> It was a struggle for the At-Large to understand in conceptualising
>> expected behaviour of an At-Large selected director.  Because we struggle
>> with understanding the socialisation of an American corporation.  And the
>> fealty of the directors of the Board of such an animal.
>>
>> We may need ole Foghorn Leghorn's help here.  But it is time enough to
>> learn this.
>>
>> -Carlton
>>
>>
>> ==============================
>> Carlton A Samuels
>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>> =============================
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad <
>> grace.abuhamad at icann.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We looked into this and noted that the Continuity & Contingency Plan is
>>> confidential and cannot be distributed.
>>>
>>> Notes, transcripts, and recordings for RFP4 call are available here:
>>> https://community.icann.org/x/MYcQAw
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Grace
>>>
>>> From: Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>
>>> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM
>>> To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
>>>
>>> Hi Avri,
>>>
>>> This was an action item for the staff from the call on 25th November. I
>>> believe they have already put in a request for the document with the IANA
>>> staff. Maybe Grace or Marika can update us on the request.
>>>
>>> "*ACTION staff : Ask IANA staff to share details on 7.3 that might be
>>> available for the public and/or **online*"
>>> On 17 Dec 2014 17:29, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Is that 'transition to a "successor  contractor" plan' available to the
>>>> CWG?
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>> On 17-Dec-14 05:26, Matthew Shears wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> Section C.7 in the current contract addresses issues of continuity of
>>>> operations - particularly C.7.3, according to which ICANN should have a
>>>> transition to a "successor
>>>> contractor" plan in place at the moment
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>> On 12/17/2014 3:38 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As someone whose ICANN 'job" is supporting/defending the needs of
>>>> Internet users, I will point out that security and stability of the IANA
>>>> functions is of paramount importance for the ALAC as well.
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to the seeing how that can be assured in a potentially
>>>> disruptive switch of the IANA operator where it may be that there is no
>>>> continuity of either staff or systems.
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> At 15/12/2014 03:16 PM, Donna Austin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20141218/6bc24f18/attachment-0001.html>