Dear all,

We can continue to discuss for ever on e-mail on this issue. My point is simple. To be accepted by all, it has to be globally inclusive, both in  terms of stakeholder composition and geographical inclusion.

Erik

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:08 PM
To: Milton L Mueller; FORSBERG Lars-Erik (CNECT); 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org'
Cc: 'Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch'
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

 

To add to Milton’s comments, I thought we had agreed to avoid going down the path where the new entity (entities) become ever expanding organizations like ICANN has done.  The risks are big if we allow that to happen.

 

Chuck

 

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:49 PM
To: 'Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org'
Cc: 'Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch'
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

 

Lars-Erik

We need to be realistic in our approach to MRT composition. 5 GAC reps, not to mention the 5 regional reps of all the other ACs that will inevitably follow from such an approach, makes no sense given the function of the MRT. It represents a dysfunctional swelling of the MRT to unwieldy proportions, and a politicization of its function. The purpose of MRT is not to optimize ease of representation for the GAC, nor is it to maximize “global engagement” in a non-policy making entity. It is a contracting authority for the IANA functions. Global engagement comes in the policy process. We need to stop thinking of the MRT as something that represents diverse policy views. I see no reason why a single GAC representative is not sufficient to provide the kind of oversight needed to determine whether governments think the IANA contractor is doing an acceptable job. If the GAC can aggregate its views enough to elect a single chair, or to write a single communique, why can it not select a single MRT representative?

 

--MM

 

From: Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM
To: Milton L Mueller; Donna.Austin@ariservices.com; gurcharya@gmail.com; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Cc: Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

 

Hi Milton,

True, GAC is an advisory body but I think there are a lot of other reasons for the 5 members, not only that public authorities have signed up and participates in the  multistakeholder community but also for reasons of global engagement and geographical balance,e not only in GAC but in the community as a whole…it is not as if Africa,  Latin America or even Asia were overrepresented in the other constituencies of ICANN…

Erik

 

 

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 6:50 PM
To: Donna Austin; Guru Acharya; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT

 

Donna:

I agree with you that gTLD registries should have parity with ccTLD registries in the MRT. In our original discussions of this composition, I proposed 5 and 5. But we just didn’t know how to create that parity easily given the GNSO’s 4- stakeholder group structure. I would encourage you think of ways to do that in ways that would be acceptable to the GNSO as a whole. Perhaps 2 from the RySG instead of 1 if you can get the other SGs to accept it.  

 

Guru:

I would strongly oppose putting 5 GAC seats on the MRT. My initial idea was actually to have one ALAC, GAC and SSAC representative on the MRT. GAC is a policy advisory committee, so is ALAC. It makes absolutely no sense to have the MRT stacked with entities whose main concern is policy. Further, many governments are direct owners or licensors of their ccTLD so they would be represented when and if IANA functions affects them directly.  

 

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.  

 

--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

 

Description: Description: Description: ARI LogoDONNA 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?