sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 1 Dec 2014 22:18, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 01-Dec-14 20:25, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>
>> Honestly at this point I think something is not clear here. Can you confirm if this PRT is within ICANN or not because your message above is implying outside. The second question is, what are the "IANA operation" related issues that ICANN board could say no to? and how is the accountability track fixing/addressing that.
>
>
> a few of us were talking about this evening over Eurodig drings and over dinner.
>
> I have come to believe the the MRT is really the ICANN Community as we know + others, but instead of sending its decisions to the Board for blessing it sends its decision to the Contract Co. for execution.
>
Okay it's MRT not PRT then... this is noted!

> It has been obvious for a while that the ICANN community and  ICANN Corporate are separate. So I have no trouble imagining that for the purposes of the MRT we organize what is essentially the stakeholders invovled in the ICANN community + some other parts of the Internet community into the MRT. Pretty much exactly just as we done with the ICG.
>
There is definitely a non-negligible flaw and replication in what you are proposing Avri, and I like the fact that you are using ICG as an example. ICG is a group that can only survive for a short while...It's not a sustainable group. ICG at the moment has not done their main task.. so you wait and see how that process will look like. I think this is like creating a new ICANN community and it's a replication of effort, wastage of customer money and further creation of cabals (which is already existing in the young ICG).
I also don't understand the view that ICANN community and corporate are separate. What does that mean? and how is ICANN community different from a typical RIR community.

> As for who pays for the whole sructure we are talking about, it should be the IANA contractor, ICANN at this point, as part of its zero cost support of the IANA function. 
>
Please when you think of who pays, think of it from the customer perspective, think of participation, think of the resources that's already been expended in this current ICG process.

>
The only thing that seems like it may require outside funding is the RFP/rebid process.  And for that we just follow the example we have been taught by ICANN Corporate and Contract Co. charges the applicants for the IANA contract an application fee sufficient for the process to be, as they say, cost neutral.
>
Oh so the MRT will even be the team to do an RFP process. Well I think this cwg is just trying to drag us to a more complicated future which I am definitely opposed to.

> So it is not within ICANN, but it is formed by the ICANN Community with others.
>
Maybe when we see the details of the formation and the charter of the team we will better appreciate what we are proposing.

On a lighter note, it's interesting that we will want to put all these structure just because of a "what if". It's also interesting that we are not thinking of the possibility of the young MRT being subject to capture.

Cheers!

> avri
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>