Seun: The MRT's responsibilities go well beyond reviewing processes (none of which are currently automated at this point, I believe, though some apparently have automation ready to go) and reports. I don't think it helps the dialogue to mischaracterize the roles being transitioned from the NTIA to the MRT. In any event, since there is highly likely to be an MRT-like body in any proposal, it will need to be funded regardless. I don't understand your first or third questions. I believe the answer to the second is the global multistakeholder community. Greg On Sunday, December 14, 2014, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
For the most part that is true Seun. If community developed policy is not the 100% source of IANA implementation of TLDs, especially for gTLDs, then an appeal should be filed.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Sunday, December 14, 2014 1:11 PM *To:* Milton L Mueller *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 14 Dec 2014 18:50, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
I think people are still getting confused about the role of policy and
implementation, and viewing the MRT as a way to intervene in policy. This is very dangerous and needs to be discouraged. MRT is concerned with who the IANA contractor should be and with the accuracy, security, efficiency and stability with which the names IANA functions are implemented. That is all.
And what will MRT use to make that decision? and on whose behalf will they be making such decisions? What accountability will MRT be ensuring if community developed policy is not the 100% source of IANA implementation/operation. You are basically saying that, the proposed overreaching structure should be funded (with end users money) just to review automated processes/reports.
Cheers!
--MM
From: Donna Austin [mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:16 PM To: Milton L Mueller; Guru Acharya; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Milton,
Speaking as the RySG representative on the CWG: as direct customers of
the IANA function, gTLD registries would seek at a minimum parity, in your proposal, for five members from the ccNSO. Your current composition is inherently imbalanced by providing for only 1 gTLD registry operator compared to 5 ccTLD registry operators.
While ccTLDs have in the past been the primary customer of the IANA
naming services, the delegation of more than 400 new gTLDs means that this is no longer the case. If you can find rationale to have 5 ccTLD registry operators in your proposed composition of the MRT, I see no reason why this rationale should not be extended to gTLD registry operators.
Thanks,
Donna
DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin@ariservices.com W www.ariservices.com
Follow us on Twitter
The information contained in this communication is intended for the
named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, 12 December 2014 5:42 AM To: Guru Acharya; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Here’s an idea that some of us in NCSG are kicking around
We propose a 21-member team with 2 non-voting liaisons, with some kind of supermajority voting construct (⅔ or ⅘) for key decisions. The composition is structured and balanced to ensure that the MRT embodies a strong commitment to efficient and neutral administration of the DNS root zone rather than any specific policy agenda. Safeguards must be in place to ensure that it is independent of ICANN corporate but also cannot be captured or unduly influenced by governments, intergovernmental organizations, or specific economic interests. The MRT should draw most of its ICANN community members from ICANN’s GNSO and ccNSO, with the GNSO forwarding 4 (1 member for each Stakeholder Group), and the ccNSO forwarding 5 (1 for each world region). The root server operators should also be represented on the MRT with 2 positions. Each ICANN Advisory Committee (GAC, SSAC and ALAC) should appoint 2 members. There should be 4 independent experts external to the ICANN community selected through a public nomination process administered by [who? ISOC? IEEE?] but subject to conflict of interest constraints. Additionally, 2 non-voting but fully participating liaisons from the other operational communities should be appointed (by ASO for numbers and by IAB for protocols) to facilitate coordination across the different IANA functions. MRT members should be appointed for limited terms sized appropriate to the contract renewal cycle.
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
The CWG is yet to decide the composition of the MRT. I was hoping someone could throw a strawman composition at us so that discussions can be initiated.
As reference, the composition of ICG is as follows:
ALAC x 2
ASO x 1
ccNSO x 4
GAC x 5
GNSO x 3
gTLD Registries x 2
ICC/BASIS x 1
IAB x 2
IETF x 2
ISOC x 2
NRO x 2
RSSAC x 2
SSAC x 2
1) Should members of non-naming communities (like IETF and ASO) be a part of MRT since our proposal only relates to the IANA for the names community? For example, the CRISP (numbers community) draft proposal does not envision names community members in its oversight mechanism.
2) Which stakeholder groups should be included beyond the ICANN community structures so that the MRT is representative of the global-multistakeholder community? For example, should IGF-MAG members have a place?
3) How do we include ccTLDs that are not ccNSO members?
4) How do we ensure membership from developing countries (not government, but civil society or technical community) - is some sort of affirmative action possible?
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship