[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Fri Dec 19 18:07:50 UTC 2014

Seun:

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are drawing between "all
inclusive" and "representative."  Can you elaborate, please?

That will help me understand why you are saying that its work should be
"non-representational."  I would have thought that having the Members act
as representatives of their communities would be a good thing (subject only
to the caveat that the group as a whole needs to work for the common good
and not to satisfy a series of special interests).

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 Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>>  Greg and other CWG members:
>>
>>
>>
>> I am thinking more and more that the MRT should be almost completely
>> orthogonal to the GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC policy making complex. Our mental
>> model of what it is and who should be on it needs to be completely detached
>> from the policy making apparatus. We might think of drawing representatives
>> from the regional network operating groups (NOGs), from the IAB/IETEF/ISOC,
>> with a leavening of registry operators and civil society and prominent
>> public officials to ensure a public interest perspective.
>>
>
> Just to mention that i disagree with this view, members of the MRT should
> be drawn from the SO/ACs which is a known multistakeholder community but
> the activities of MRT is what needs to be all inclusive and not
> representative. The activities of the MRT needs to be completely
> non-representational as much as possible. The charter of MRT should make
> that clear distinction and on a lighter note, like i mentioned during the
> rfp3 call, maybe the name MRT is also putting too much weight on
> representation ;)
>
> Thanks
>
> Cheers!
>
>>
>>
>> --MM
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:22 PM
>> *To:* Christopher Wilkinson
>> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20141219/32d6b582/attachment-0001.html>