[CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

[WUKnoben]

Thanks Milton for taking care of the ISPs’ interests. I would welcome this happening even more in future – but in a correct way.

I hardly think that the ISPs are sending "trademark lawyers" to the ISPCP constituency. NOGs are well represented there as long as they are interested at all in ICANN (including IANA functions). On technical issues we even run a specific email list with them because many of them don’t wish to play in the political arena, their focus is totally on the daily operational issues. A separate representation on the MRT would not bring any value.

Your point made in an earlier comment that the 3 CSG constituencies do vote almost not differently  and therefore would be no justification to allocate separate seats to them on the MRT is taken from discussions we’ve had already 6-7 years ago. Repeating it in this context doesn’t make it more credible.

I would not take the fact that the esteemed chair of the RrSG publicly characterized IANA being boring as an indication that this SG may be not interested in IANA matters and would do without an MRT seat.

I see structuring of the MRT being a question of representing the interests in the IANA stewardship functions plus balancing these interests. So far numbers should be discussed at the end.


Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Gomes, Chuck 
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 3:33 AM
To: Milton L Mueller ; Greg Shatan 
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

Thanks Milton.  I am not sure any group would need more than one person on the MRT as long as the charter for the MRT explicitly requires that person to act according to the directions of the group he/she represents.

 

Chuck

 

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 6:17 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

 

 

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 

CG: 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 

 

MM: I think we agree, I am not looking for a “place for all those outside the ICANN world.” I am looking for a very focused MRT whose members 

a) DO have an interest in accurate, secure and neutral IANA implementation and 

b) do NOT have an interest in re-writing or circumventing policy. 

So I was thinking of adding ISPs, via their NOGs. Generally, ISPs are interested in the functionality of the Internet and are poorly represented in ICANN, because names are involved they tend to send trademark lawyers rather than operational people. We might also look to entities like ISOC and IEEE. I just don’t want a mirror image of the ICANN. I don’t think that can provide objective oversight. 

 

CG: 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.

 

MM: again, totally agree this is an issue, it was noted in my earlier messages, that’s one reason we keep reverting to the GNSO structures. It is like the drunken man at night looking for his keys under a lamppost at night, not because that’s where the keys are most likely to be, but because that’s where the light is better. But NOGs do have institutions: NANOG, ENOG, etc; I am not sure how prepared they are to forward people but they certainly have the capability to select representatives as well as any ICANN organ. 

 

CG: 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.  

 

MM: I understand why someone from the GNSO feels this way. ;-) it is the familiar and easy thing to do. It is not necessarily the best thing to do however. As a matter of fact, the GNSO is never going to put people who are not well-known actors in the GNSO into such a position. So the MRT members will be confined to a narrow circle of well-known GNSO people – exactly the same people who are making policy. Which is not entirely a bad thing, of course – but should it be the _only_ thing?. Likewise, I see no reason why any of the AC’s need more than one person on the MRT, unless they mistakenly view this as a voting game in which they try to make policy. I do see why registries (both cc’s and g’s) as customers of IANA have a special need to be well represented in any decision to change or retain an IANA functions contractor. I do see why the users – both commercial and noncommercial SGs – need to be there to make sure the registries don’t get too cozy. But the idea that we need every GNSO constituency represented on there strikes me as outlandish.  

 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20141222/fecec41c/attachment.html>