[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Mon Dec 22 02:48:42 UTC 2014

Christopher,

The fact that you compare the CWG work unfavorably with the IETF and CRISP proposals tells me that you must not truly understand the differences between the naming and world and the other two.

Regarding vertical integration, the GNSO did not make any recommendations.

Please be specific in explaining why you think registries and registrars have lost all credibility.  The reason you give doesn't exist to my knowledge.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 2:40 PM
To: Greg Shatan
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Importance: High

Dear Greg:

Further to your message of 18 December:

1.         When the ICG finally gets to assessing the respective proposals from IETF, CRISP and the CWG, with advice from SSAC, some rationalisation and simplification will become necessary. Since the status quo appears to be largely acceptable to several major stakeholders, I rather expect that ICG will be expected to seek and propose a collective solution.

Regarding 'separability', I consider that it would be less difficult to obtain acceptable accountability on the part of ICANN through existing processes, than it would be to ensure accountability of any new separate entities. Small, new entities would be at risk of capture, particularly as the balance of financial power in the DNS industry is increasingly distorted.

Regarding 'severability', I would recall that in addition to the requirement of technical and economic efficiency, there is an issue with the economy of oversight. None of the IANA functions are exclusive to their current 'customers'. They all pertain to significant public interests which are  currently articulated through different SOs and ACs in the ICANN context. Severaribility would aggravate, indeed exaggerate the cost of oversight to the other stakeholders concerned.

In that context, may I recall that there is no question of any future IANA entity charging fees. Obviously, ICANN and its constituent parts would contest the rationale of creating new unfunded entities to undertake tasks that they are currently fulfilling themselves, financed from existing resources.

2.         ICG is tasked with proposing an unique solution to NTIA. I would have thought that the communities concerned would have been facilitating that difficult task in substance and in time-line, but No! The initial CWG document is a long and rambling text which, from the editorial perspective, is professionally disgraceful. Indeed it compares most ill with the  structured, clear and succinct submissions from IETF, CRISP and SSAC. What do we expect ICG to do with the CWG texts?

3.         Regarding eventual alternative suggestions, I would not proceed through CWG. Following the 'vertical integration' decision - recommended (if I am not mistaken) by GNSO - the Registry and Registrar community have lost credibility as custodians of fair competition in the DNS markets. Specifically, to my mind, any future ICANN or IANA structure which would give rise to Registrar block voting on behalf  of multiple owned Registries would be totally unacceptable.

I shall not ask you whether this is helpful, but I trust that it is clear.

Regards to you all and with the Season's Greetings

CW

On 18 Dec 2014, at 22:22, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:

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<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/20141222/dcec40fe/attachment-0001.html>