[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Sat Dec 20 15:09:26 UTC 2014
While I agree with most of what Greg and Milton say, I do have a few concerns that I will try to explain here.
I definitely believe that it is important to include the opportunity for all impacted parties to provide input into the MRT regarding major decisions like an RFP. But if we start trying to find a place for all those outside of the ICANN world on the MRT, we may find ourselves right back where we are now regarding the ICANN SOs, ACs, SGs and Cs, i.e., the MRT will become too big and cumbersome. Also, if any such entities do not already have processes in place to represent their members, how could we be assured that they were indeed representative of their broader communities. One advantage of the ICANN SOs and ACs is that they do have processes in place for communicating and getting feedback from their community participants. As long as the SOs and ACs provide mechanisms for stakeholders outside of ICANN to participate, I personally think that that is the best way to go, albeit avoiding the creation of an MRT that is too large. I think it would be best to rely on the multi-stakeholder processes in the SOs and ACs to get the broad input that will be needed for major decisions like RFPs while keeping the numbers of representatives on the MRT very minimal.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:48 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Milton,
Thank you for your thoughtful and thought-provoking email. I actually agree with nearly everything you say.
First, one of the reasons I posted the matrix of proposals, and in particular the 27 member proposal, was to show that if we try to give every group "what it wants," we don't give the community (or the process), "what it needs." So, there may be no rationale for the proposal as a whole -- it is just a stack of individual rationales bundled together -- with an end result that is hardly rational at all.
I agree that we do not need to faithfully reproduce the GNSO (or any other structures) in the MRT. This is another way the MRT need not be and should not be a "mini-ICANN." While I will stand by my concerns about using the CSG as the minimum building block for ICANN groups in general, the MRT should not be viewed as just another ICANN cross-community group. While this may be an important principle to the constituencies of the CSG, it should not be applied in a mindless fashion. Speaking for myself (at the moment -- I've seen the IPC comment and I currently don't know what the BC and ISPs will say), the MRT is not the place where the CSG should "die in a ditch" to get represented at the Constituency level -- the way we usually want to get represented. I would encourage other groups to step back from their maximalist desires as well (acknowledging it sets no precedent for other groups).
This needs to be balanced against a reasonable desire to represent sectors in some fashion. If the non-registry GNSO SGs had one representative (for sake of argument), I would still want to know that they are there to represent me, the IPC and the CSG, and not just their own SG.
I agree that we were losing sight of the MRT's function, which is why we circulated the MRT "functional analysis" yesterday and spent most of our call earlier today discussing function, not structure. Many of the functions of the MRT are "boring." Things get more interesting when a deficiency or problem arises in the IANA's performance, and more interesting still when we get to issues around RFP. We don't need 27 people to review an annual security compliance audit report.
One of the useful things that came out of this call was a discussion that major RFP-related decisions have to have a strong community component. There need to be public comments, webinars, public forums, etc., before major decisions are made. If we have a good "community" process, then granular representation during the RFP period should become less of a sore point.
Your suggestion that the composition of the MRT "should be almost completely orthogonal to the GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC policy making complex" is intriguing and "disruptive" (in a good way). We should look at this afresh. I had left the door open for "other" groups to be suggested for representation, but there has not been much action on this point. We should think out of the box (and add the results to the "MRT Composition Matrix" in Google Docs).
I have a couple of issues with the list of potential participants you posit. First, and foremost, you have left out the private sector. You have also left out governments as such (although you mention "prominent public officials"). Also, you have included groups in the technical community that rare not primarily concerned with "names." If the MRT were to sit in a role that spanned names, numbers and protocol parameters this would be fairly obvious. It's not so obvious when numbers and protocol parameters are being dealt with elsewhere. (The divided nature of our task and working methods makes it harder to explore such thoughts.) But I am certainly open to considering how these technical groups "map" to the concerns that "names" have in overseeing the IANA functions.
This gives us something fresh to chew on today and over the weekend. Thank you.
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<mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
Greg and other CWG members:
Let me make an appeal to basic rationality in our consideration of the composition of the MRT.
I cannot understand the rationale for these 27-member MRT proposals. They seem to be based on the idea that in order to adequately enforce policy _implementation_, the MRT must completely reproduce the representational structure of the policy _making_ organs. Is not the logical error here rather obvious?
Because we do have an appeals process, any entity dissatisfied with the implementation of policy has a channel for redress. But the MRT should be primarily concerned with the operation of the IANA functions, not with policy making.
Let’s not forget: Any policy that is being implemented by IANA is a product of THE ENTIRE GNSO, and is also supposed to have the assent of the board after considering advice from the ACs. In other words, before any policy can be passed on for IANA implementation, it must have something close to consensus support. Given GNSO voting rules, it must have support across both contracted and non-contracted houses. The issue at that point becomes ensuring proper implementation – not altering or rewriting the policy in ways that reflect the preferences of individual stakeholder groups.
In composing the MRT, we cannot lose sight of its basic function, and I think some of us are.
By including the entire GNSO policy making structure in the MRT, and large numbers of individual AC members, we create a very big risk that issues related to policy implementation by IANA become ways to re-fight policy making battles. In other words, smaller constituencies or AC units that may not have fully agreed with a policy that was _passed and adopted_ by the broader community might try to use the MRT to subvert or change policy implementation.
Greg you have replied to me that it is difficult to “compress” the 3 Commercial SG constituencies into a single person on the MRT. To that I reply that in 10 years of observing the GNSO I have never once seen the 3 CSG constituencies vote differently on a major policy proposal. Even if there are one or two instances of divergence on minor procedural issues I just cannot comprehend why the MRT, whose mission is to oversee accurate implementation and efficient performance of the IANA functions, needs to have a separate representative from BC or IPC, or NCUC and NPOC.
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.
--MM
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022>
Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428>
gsshatan at lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:876-818-1799>
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM
To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20141220/7dd9a821/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list