[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Sun Dec 21 17:39:04 UTC 2014

It has been helpful to me too Seun.  Thanks for that.  My concern is that forming a representative committee takes quite a bit of time to do well so my personal opinion is that it is better to have one in place but thanks for your idea.

Chuck

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 2:32 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Hi Chuck,

Thanks I think I can understand the sentiment (the offlist discussion was quite helpful).

In such cases you mentioned like the RFP(if it becomes necessary), MRT could initiate a process that creates a temporary committee (that will include the broader community) and then that committee will conduct the RFP process and send its report to MRT. Once done, the committee is dissolved till another time there is such need. Like I don't expect this current CWG to exist after transition

Another way could be that when such need arises, MRT temporarily co-opts people from other communities(including outside ICANN?) to achieve the goal and after that the MRT shrinks back to its smaller size.

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 20 Dec 2014 16:13, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
If I understand what you are saying Seun (and maybe I don’t), I do not agree.  You may be right in cases of simple administrative oversight responsibilities but in cases of major MRT decisions like RFPs where I think we need broad community input, having MRT members who represent large segments of stakeholders would facilitate getting the broad input that would be needed.

Chuck

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 Seun Ojedeji
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:45 PM
To: Greg Shatan
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Hello Greg,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
Seun:

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

I will try to to explain what i mean by the statement below:
The activities of the MRT needs to be completely non-representational as much as possible.

This simply means that although the members of the team are drawn from the relevant SO/ACs (i.e GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC) but the team's decision making process should be open to anybody globally (which includes the communities of members of the team) so thats what i mean by all-inclusive.
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).

No that would defeat the goal of providing means for communities/individual outside ICANN to participate.
However in all these, we should note that MRT by design will be a last resort trigger and will only come in when the normal reconciliation processes of the SO/AC has proved abortive. For example, if the policy implementation wg of GNSO follow its processes to addressing its concern with the IANA operator and it still proved abortive, then the MRT comes in to develop a community acceptable solution which the ICANN board will be required to implement.
I hope this clarifies what i meant.
Thanks

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 11:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto: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> [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

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535<tel:%2B2348035233535>
alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
The key to understanding is humility - my view !

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535<tel:%2B2348035233535>
alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng<mailto: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/20141221/18dc4e73/attachment-0001.html>