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?
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?
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 Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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?
Hi, As one of those contributing to this draft who suggested this formula, I can give my thinking: 1. We should not be looking for numerical parity between the two policy makers, cc and g, but rather looking at their organizational structure. ccTLD policy organizes into regions, (5) gTLD policy organizes into Stakeholder Group (4) 2. When thinking of gTLD policy, it is the GNSO as a whole that needs to be represented in the MRT. The registries have a prioirty in the CSC which focuses on operational issues. I see the MRT as dealing with the Policy aspects and these are GNSO not just Registry Stakeholder Group. avri On 13-Dec-14 12:15, Donna Austin wrote:
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 Logo*D**ONNA 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 <mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com>_ _*W** *www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/>
/Follow us on //Twitter/ <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
/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 (2/3 or 4/5) 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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Guru Acharya *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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
Hi Avri, I presume that GAC would also like to organise according to the 5 regions, as it did for the ICG. Would 5 seats for GAC be an acceptable modification driven by the logic that you just presented? On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
As one of those contributing to this draft who suggested this formula, I can give my thinking:
1. We should not be looking for numerical parity between the two policy makers, cc and g, but rather looking at their organizational structure.
ccTLD policy organizes into regions, (5) gTLD policy organizes into Stakeholder Group (4)
2. When thinking of gTLD policy, it is the GNSO as a whole that needs to be represented in the MRT. The registries have a prioirty in the CSC which focuses on operational issues. I see the MRT as dealing with the Policy aspects and these are GNSO not just Registry Stakeholder Group.
avri
On 13-Dec-14 12:15, Donna Austin wrote:
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
[image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA 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* <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
*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 <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 <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 listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, In this, the idea was that the policy making bodies, ie. the 2 naming SOs, should have the majority representation. avri On 13-Dec-14 13:06, Guru Acharya wrote:
Hi Avri,
I presume that GAC would also like to organise according to the 5 regions, as it did for the ICG. Would 5 seats for GAC be an acceptable modification driven by the logic that you just presented?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
As one of those contributing to this draft who suggested this formula, I can give my thinking:
1. We should not be looking for numerical parity between the two policy makers, cc and g, but rather looking at their organizational structure.
ccTLD policy organizes into regions, (5) gTLD policy organizes into Stakeholder Group (4)
2. When thinking of gTLD policy, it is the GNSO as a whole that needs to be represented in the MRT. The registries have a prioirty in the CSC which focuses on operational issues. I see the MRT as dealing with the Policy aspects and these are GNSO not just Registry Stakeholder Group.
avri
On 13-Dec-14 12:15, Donna Austin wrote:
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 Logo*D**ONNA 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 <mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com>_ _*W** *www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/>
/Follow us on //Twitter/ <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
/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> [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 <mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Guru Acharya *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, One thing I might add. The draft is at the current consensus point, an annealing point of sorts, of those working on the document for the NCSG. It is now up for full NCSG review &c. and thus could change. But this is where we have gotten to while trying to balance the various constraints, considerations and ideas within NCSG on the IANA issue. avri On 13-Dec-14 13:28, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
In this, the idea was that the policy making bodies, ie. the 2 naming SOs, should have the majority representation.
avri
On 13-Dec-14 13:06, Guru Acharya wrote:
Hi Avri,
I presume that GAC would also like to organise according to the 5 regions, as it did for the ICG. Would 5 seats for GAC be an acceptable modification driven by the logic that you just presented?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
As one of those contributing to this draft who suggested this formula, I can give my thinking:
1. We should not be looking for numerical parity between the two policy makers, cc and g, but rather looking at their organizational structure.
ccTLD policy organizes into regions, (5) gTLD policy organizes into Stakeholder Group (4)
2. When thinking of gTLD policy, it is the GNSO as a whole that needs to be represented in the MRT. The registries have a prioirty in the CSC which focuses on operational issues. I see the MRT as dealing with the Policy aspects and these are GNSO not just Registry Stakeholder Group.
avri
On 13-Dec-14 12:15, Donna Austin wrote:
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 Logo*D**ONNA 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 <mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com>_ _*W** *www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/>
/Follow us on //Twitter/ <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
/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> [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 <mailto: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 (2/3 or 4/5) 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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Guru Acharya *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
This would make sense if the MRT was making policy, but they are not. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 1:29 PM Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Hi, In this, the idea was that the policy making bodies, ie. the 2 naming SOs, should have the majority representation. avri On 13-Dec-14 13:06, Guru Acharya wrote: Hi Avri, I presume that GAC would also like to organise according to the 5 regions, as it did for the ICG. Would 5 seats for GAC be an acceptable modification driven by the logic that you just presented? On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: Hi, As one of those contributing to this draft who suggested this formula, I can give my thinking: 1. We should not be looking for numerical parity between the two policy makers, cc and g, but rather looking at their organizational structure. ccTLD policy organizes into regions, (5) gTLD policy organizes into Stakeholder Group (4) 2. When thinking of gTLD policy, it is the GNSO as a whole that needs to be represented in the MRT. The registries have a prioirty in the CSC which focuses on operational issues. I see the MRT as dealing with the Policy aspects and these are GNSO not just Registry Stakeholder Group. avri On 13-Dec-14 12:15, Donna Austin wrote: 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 Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, Not making, but insuring that the policy they made is handled properly. Also they will be making decisions about the actions of Contract Co., ie. the basis for renewal, the content of any RFP &c. these will have a very strong policy component. I see this as a task of the policy making bodies. avri On 14-Dec-14 11:51, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
This would make sense if the MRT was making policy, but they are not.
Chuck
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria *Sent:* Saturday, December 13, 2014 1:29 PM *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Hi,
In this, the idea was that the policy making bodies, ie. the 2 naming SOs, should have the majority representation.
avri
On 13-Dec-14 13:06, Guru Acharya wrote:
Hi Avri,
I presume that GAC would also like to organise according to the 5 regions, as it did for the ICG. Would 5 seats for GAC be an acceptable modification driven by the logic that you just presented?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
As one of those contributing to this draft who suggested this formula, I can give my thinking:
1. We should not be looking for numerical parity between the two policy makers, cc and g, but rather looking at their organizational structure.
ccTLD policy organizes into regions, (5) gTLD policy organizes into Stakeholder Group (4)
2. When thinking of gTLD policy, it is the GNSO as a whole that needs to be represented in the MRT. The registries have a prioirty in the CSC which focuses on operational issues. I see the MRT as dealing with the Policy aspects and these are GNSO not just Registry Stakeholder Group.
avri
On 13-Dec-14 12:15, Donna Austin wrote:
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 Logo*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 <mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com>_ _*W *www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/>
/Follow us on //Twitter/ <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
/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> [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 <mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Guru Acharya *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear Guru, I think this is matter to be discussed in GAC. I copy Thomas. As you know we are currently preparing out comments. Personally I think it makes sense to have one GAC member per region (GAC is gradually adopting that approach not only in ICG but also elsewhere). Best regards Erik From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 7:06 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Hi Avri, I presume that GAC would also like to organise according to the 5 regions, as it did for the ICG. Would 5 seats for GAC be an acceptable modification driven by the logic that you just presented? On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: Hi, As one of those contributing to this draft who suggested this formula, I can give my thinking: 1. We should not be looking for numerical parity between the two policy makers, cc and g, but rather looking at their organizational structure. ccTLD policy organizes into regions, (5) gTLD policy organizes into Stakeholder Group (4) 2. When thinking of gTLD policy, it is the GNSO as a whole that needs to be represented in the MRT. The registries have a prioirty in the CSC which focuses on operational issues. I see the MRT as dealing with the Policy aspects and these are GNSO not just Registry Stakeholder Group. avri On 13-Dec-14 12:15, Donna Austin wrote: 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 Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Avri – when considering the ccTLD representation, we have to also be mindful of how to include the many ccTLDs are not members of the ccNSO. This inclusion should also be extended to any gTLD registries that may not be members of the GNSO. Allan From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: December-13-14 12:41 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Hi, As one of those contributing to this draft who suggested this formula, I can give my thinking: 1. We should not be looking for numerical parity between the two policy makers, cc and g, but rather looking at their organizational structure. ccTLD policy organizes into regions, (5) gTLD policy organizes into Stakeholder Group (4) 2. When thinking of gTLD policy, it is the GNSO as a whole that needs to be represented in the MRT. The registries have a prioirty in the CSC which focuses on operational issues. I see the MRT as dealing with the Policy aspects and these are GNSO not just Registry Stakeholder Group. avri On 13-Dec-14 12:15, Donna Austin wrote: 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 Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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 Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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?
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
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<mailto: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<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:16 PM To: Milton L Mueller; Guru Acharya; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://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> [mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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
From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] You are basically saying that, the proposed overreaching structure should be funded (with end users money) just to review automated processes/reports. MM: I am saying nothing of the sort. The MRT is a review team. What does it review? The operation of the IANA functions. What else does it do? Writes the contract and decide to whom to award it. One of the IANA functions operator’s key requirements is to faithfully implement any policies that require root zone changes. The MRT is concerned not with making policies, but with ensuring their proper implementation. That is what I am saying.
On 14/12/2014 17:49, Milton L Mueller wrote:
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.
Both the GAC and the ALAC advise ICANN on its overall activities, not only the policy aspects. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#XI Kind regards, Olivier
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<mailto: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 Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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?
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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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 Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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?
Good evening: I fear that Milton is engaging in rather naïve wishful thinking. 1. I am not at all convinced that we need anything like the complexities that have been invented by CWG for the NTIA transition, but having done so … 2. The vast attention that has been addressed to this relatively simple issue has doubtless attracted the conviction of stakeholders, who before knew not otherwise, that participation in control of the process has become indispensable. In that context, today, a 'non policy making entity' does not exist. If you do not want to multiply policy making, you need fewer entities, not more. 3. With due respect to Milton, the CWG and other stakeholders concerned, recent experience is that when you ask governments how they wish to be represented, they will let you know. Regards CW On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:49, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
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
<image002.png>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
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. · One of the four principles identified in the NTIA announcement is: Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and I’m concerned that this is being sometimes forgotten in our discussion. · As direct customers of the IANA service as it relates to naming, I believe that registries should have an important voice in any discussion regarding performance, RFP and any resulting discussions about whether the IANA function should, at any time in the future, be moved out of ICANN. · I don’t believe that ‘equal’ representation, ie 5 from the GAC, 5 from ALAC, 5 from the ccNSO, results in a balanced MRT, particularly when the MRT comprises 21+ members. Alignments or alliances are formed based on particular views and opinions, or ultimate end games. · In this context, I do believe that there is an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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 Christopher Wilkinson Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 11:00 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Importance: High Good evening: I fear that Milton is engaging in rather naïve wishful thinking. 1. I am not at all convinced that we need anything like the complexities that have been invented by CWG for the NTIA transition, but having done so … 2. The vast attention that has been addressed to this relatively simple issue has doubtless attracted the conviction of stakeholders, who before knew not otherwise, that participation in control of the process has become indispensable. In that context, today, a 'non policy making entity' does not exist. If you do not want to multiply policy making, you need fewer entities, not more. 3. With due respect to Milton, the CWG and other stakeholders concerned, recent experience is that when you ask governments how they wish to be represented, they will let you know. Regards CW On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:49, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: 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> [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu>] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>; gurcharya@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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 <image002.png>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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I have two comments to this thread. One is about the use of words – please be careful in how you address others. Don’t use a word like naïve – we need to be respectful of each other’s opinions and ideas. I might be oversensitive but keeping the arguments to point will make our work much easier, thank you. Another is that I would like to support Donna’s view that we should keep this simple and that registries as direct costumers should have an important voice in the discussions regarding performance and the question regarding where the IANA functions is placed. If this means that registries (ccs and gs) should have greater rather than equal representation in MRT? I am not sure, but I think we need to keep the model to a degree where the flexibility of MRT isn’t made impossible by having too large a group of stakeholders by numbers - not representation. Best, Lise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Donna Austin Sendt: 15. december 2014 21:16 Til: Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT 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. · One of the four principles identified in the NTIA announcement is: Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and I’m concerned that this is being sometimes forgotten in our discussion. · As direct customers of the IANA service as it relates to naming, I believe that registries should have an important voice in any discussion regarding performance, RFP and any resulting discussions about whether the IANA function should, at any time in the future, be moved out of ICANN. · I don’t believe that ‘equal’ representation, ie 5 from the GAC, 5 from ALAC, 5 from the ccNSO, results in a balanced MRT, particularly when the MRT comprises 21+ members. Alignments or alliances are formed based on particular views and opinions, or ultimate end games. · In this context, I do believe that there is an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT. 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 <mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> donna.austin@ariservices.com W <http://www.ariservices.com/> www.ariservices.com Follow us on <https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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 Christopher Wilkinson Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 11:00 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Importance: High Good evening: I fear that Milton is engaging in rather naïve wishful thinking. 1. I am not at all convinced that we need anything like the complexities that have been invented by CWG for the NTIA transition, but having done so … 2. The vast attention that has been addressed to this relatively simple issue has doubtless attracted the conviction of stakeholders, who before knew not otherwise, that participation in control of the process has become indispensable. In that context, today, a 'non policy making entity' does not exist. If you do not want to multiply policy making, you need fewer entities, not more. 3. With due respect to Milton, the CWG and other stakeholders concerned, recent experience is that when you ask governments how they wish to be represented, they will let you know. Regards CW On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:49, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote: 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- <mailto:Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu> Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM To: Milton L Mueller; <mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> Donna.Austin@ariservices.com; <mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com> gurcharya@gmail.com; <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> 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: <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ <mailto: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; <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> 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> mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:16 PM To: Milton L Mueller; Guru Acharya; <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> 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 <image002.png>DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E <mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> donna.austin@ariservices.com W <http://www.ariservices.com/> www.ariservices.com Follow us on <https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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: <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ <mailto: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; <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> 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: <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ <mailto: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: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> 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
We might have broader representation on the MRT but establish consensus requirements that give TLD registries some kind of veto or near-unanimity requirement before certain decisions can be made. E.g., even if the entire MRT votes one way, if all but 1 of the TLD registry representatives didn’t agree it wouldn’t pass. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 7:13 AM To: 'Donna Austin'; 'Christopher Wilkinson'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT I have two comments to this thread. One is about the use of words – please be careful in how you address others. Don’t use a word like naïve – we need to be respectful of each other’s opinions and ideas. I might be oversensitive but keeping the arguments to point will make our work much easier, thank you. Another is that I would like to support Donna’s view that we should keep this simple and that registries as direct costumers should have an important voice in the discussions regarding performance and the question regarding where the IANA functions is placed. If this means that registries (ccs and gs) should have greater rather than equal representation in MRT? I am not sure, but I think we need to keep the model to a degree where the flexibility of MRT isn’t made impossible by having too large a group of stakeholders by numbers - not representation. Best, Lise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Donna Austin Sendt: 15. december 2014 21:16 Til: Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT 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. · One of the four principles identified in the NTIA announcement is: Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and I’m concerned that this is being sometimes forgotten in our discussion. · As direct customers of the IANA service as it relates to naming, I believe that registries should have an important voice in any discussion regarding performance, RFP and any resulting discussions about whether the IANA function should, at any time in the future, be moved out of ICANN. · I don’t believe that ‘equal’ representation, ie 5 from the GAC, 5 from ALAC, 5 from the ccNSO, results in a balanced MRT, particularly when the MRT comprises 21+ members. Alignments or alliances are formed based on particular views and opinions, or ultimate end games. · In this context, I do believe that there is an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 11:00 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Importance: High Good evening: I fear that Milton is engaging in rather naïve wishful thinking. 1. I am not at all convinced that we need anything like the complexities that have been invented by CWG for the NTIA transition, but having done so … 2. The vast attention that has been addressed to this relatively simple issue has doubtless attracted the conviction of stakeholders, who before knew not otherwise, that participation in control of the process has become indispensable. In that context, today, a 'non policy making entity' does not exist. If you do not want to multiply policy making, you need fewer entities, not more. 3. With due respect to Milton, the CWG and other stakeholders concerned, recent experience is that when you ask governments how they wish to be represented, they will let you know. Regards CW On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:49, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: 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> [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu>] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>; gurcharya@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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 <image002.png>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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear all, I agree with the comments from Milton, Lise and Dona on a flexible solution and avoiding swelling out of proportions - but I don’t see an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT. The CWG is working on the basis of a model with a distinction between the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) - who will evaluating IANA reports and performance of the IANA function for the community at large, based on a direct customer relationship and the Multistakeholder Review team (MRT), who need to be real Multistakeholder with en equally balanced representation from the community at large. Operational stability, reliability of the IANA service and the actual placing of the IANA function is of the outmost importance for the whole community. Best Elise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Lise Fuhr Sendt: 16. desember 2014 13:13 Til: 'Donna Austin'; 'Christopher Wilkinson'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT I have two comments to this thread. One is about the use of words – please be careful in how you address others. Don’t use a word like naïve – we need to be respectful of each other’s opinions and ideas. I might be oversensitive but keeping the arguments to point will make our work much easier, thank you. Another is that I would like to support Donna’s view that we should keep this simple and that registries as direct costumers should have an important voice in the discussions regarding performance and the question regarding where the IANA functions is placed. If this means that registries (ccs and gs) should have greater rather than equal representation in MRT? I am not sure, but I think we need to keep the model to a degree where the flexibility of MRT isn’t made impossible by having too large a group of stakeholders by numbers - not representation. Best, Lise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Donna Austin Sendt: 15. december 2014 21:16 Til: Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT 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. · One of the four principles identified in the NTIA announcement is: Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and I’m concerned that this is being sometimes forgotten in our discussion. · As direct customers of the IANA service as it relates to naming, I believe that registries should have an important voice in any discussion regarding performance, RFP and any resulting discussions about whether the IANA function should, at any time in the future, be moved out of ICANN. · I don’t believe that ‘equal’ representation, ie 5 from the GAC, 5 from ALAC, 5 from the ccNSO, results in a balanced MRT, particularly when the MRT comprises 21+ members. Alignments or alliances are formed based on particular views and opinions, or ultimate end games. · In this context, I do believe that there is an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 11:00 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Importance: High Good evening: I fear that Milton is engaging in rather naïve wishful thinking. 1. I am not at all convinced that we need anything like the complexities that have been invented by CWG for the NTIA transition, but having done so … 2. The vast attention that has been addressed to this relatively simple issue has doubtless attracted the conviction of stakeholders, who before knew not otherwise, that participation in control of the process has become indispensable. In that context, today, a 'non policy making entity' does not exist. If you do not want to multiply policy making, you need fewer entities, not more. 3. With due respect to Milton, the CWG and other stakeholders concerned, recent experience is that when you ask governments how they wish to be represented, they will let you know. Regards CW On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:49, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: 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> [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu>] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>; gurcharya@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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 <image002.png>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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Elise, These are good comments and I think you define the issue well even though there are still differences in our views. It is true that the CSC affords direct customers of IANA an augmented role, as it should – though even there we have seen pressures to make it include all kinds of other stakeholders. That is a good feature of the current proposal that I hope we all accept. The MRT, however, is the one that makes the ultimate decisions regarding who is the IANA functions contractor, and also provides general oversight. The CSC merely reports to it. It is true that the MRT should be more broadly representative of stakeholders than the CSC, because there is some (probably small) danger that the registries would have an interest in not correcting deviations from policy. While we do want other stakeholder groups on the MRT, I think you can recognize the danger of turning it into a broad kind of “parliament” that purports to represent everybody everywhere. Such an entity could very easily come to believe that it embodies the public interest and is empowered to supersede or override the policy making process, when it is only supposed to be overseeing implementation of agreed policies. Indeed, that concern was reinforced rather directly by Chris Wilkinson’s comments, who informed us that there is no such thing as a non-policy making entity. I believe that the solution to this dilemma is clear: The MRT needs to be bound by specific criteria that it can use to change the IANA contractor, and specific criteria that it uses for oversight. There also need to be clear criteria for why the MRT can NOT alter the IANA contractor. The MRT should not be seen as a discretionary board that can just pull the plug because it wants to. With respect to representation, the MRT should be designed to represent a general interest in accurate, secure and efficient implementation of DNS policy. That’s all. That is why registries have more weight in that context, imho. To me, it’s wrong to base the MRT composition upon categories and methods designed to make the policy making process representative, such as 1 per region, or including numerous representatives of stakeholder groups whose main interest is in policy formulation rather than implementation, such as national governments. But these stakeholders should be present. Basically they need one person on there to raise issues. In that way, ANY stakeholder could bring claims to the MRT and it would be more or less bound to pursue them if they corresponded to one of the criteria it was supposed to use in its oversight or contracting. Just as the NTIA had public comment periods asking for information – which were open to any stakeholder – so the MRT could have such processes as well. But we do have to ensure that the MRT’s composition and activities are carefully restricted to oversight of IANA functions implementation, and not In assessing the “Multistakeholder” nature of an entity, we cannot look at any committee or entity in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lindeberg, Elise Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:04 AM To: Lise Fuhr; 'Donna Austin'; 'Christopher Wilkinson'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Dear all, I agree with the comments from Milton, Lise and Dona on a flexible solution and avoiding swelling out of proportions - but I don’t see an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT. The CWG is working on the basis of a model with a distinction between the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) - who will evaluating IANA reports and performance of the IANA function for the community at large, based on a direct customer relationship and the Multistakeholder Review team (MRT), who need to be real Multistakeholder with en equally balanced representation from the community at large. Operational stability, reliability of the IANA service and the actual placing of the IANA function is of the outmost importance for the whole community. Best Elise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Lise Fuhr Sendt: 16. desember 2014 13:13 Til: 'Donna Austin'; 'Christopher Wilkinson'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT I have two comments to this thread. One is about the use of words – please be careful in how you address others. Don’t use a word like naïve – we need to be respectful of each other’s opinions and ideas. I might be oversensitive but keeping the arguments to point will make our work much easier, thank you. Another is that I would like to support Donna’s view that we should keep this simple and that registries as direct costumers should have an important voice in the discussions regarding performance and the question regarding where the IANA functions is placed. If this means that registries (ccs and gs) should have greater rather than equal representation in MRT? I am not sure, but I think we need to keep the model to a degree where the flexibility of MRT isn’t made impossible by having too large a group of stakeholders by numbers - not representation. Best, Lise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Donna Austin Sendt: 15. december 2014 21:16 Til: Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT 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. · One of the four principles identified in the NTIA announcement is: Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and I’m concerned that this is being sometimes forgotten in our discussion. · As direct customers of the IANA service as it relates to naming, I believe that registries should have an important voice in any discussion regarding performance, RFP and any resulting discussions about whether the IANA function should, at any time in the future, be moved out of ICANN. · I don’t believe that ‘equal’ representation, ie 5 from the GAC, 5 from ALAC, 5 from the ccNSO, results in a balanced MRT, particularly when the MRT comprises 21+ members. Alignments or alliances are formed based on particular views and opinions, or ultimate end games. · In this context, I do believe that there is an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 11:00 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Importance: High Good evening: I fear that Milton is engaging in rather naïve wishful thinking. 1. I am not at all convinced that we need anything like the complexities that have been invented by CWG for the NTIA transition, but having done so … 2. The vast attention that has been addressed to this relatively simple issue has doubtless attracted the conviction of stakeholders, who before knew not otherwise, that participation in control of the process has become indispensable. In that context, today, a 'non policy making entity' does not exist. If you do not want to multiply policy making, you need fewer entities, not more. 3. With due respect to Milton, the CWG and other stakeholders concerned, recent experience is that when you ask governments how they wish to be represented, they will let you know. Regards CW On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:49, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: 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> [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu>] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>; gurcharya@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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 <image002.png>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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Balanced MS representation is essential. Although the MRT is not a policy setting body, it IS a policy enforcing body and as such, it needs balanced representation. Alan At 17/12/2014 09:04 AM, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with the comments from Milton, Lise and Dona on a flexible solution and avoiding swelling out of proportions - but I donât see an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT. The CWG is working on the basis of a model with a distinction between the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) - who will evaluating IANA reports and performance of the IANA function for the community at large, based on a direct customer relationship and the Multistakeholder Review team (MRT), who need to be real Multistakeholder with en equally balanced representation from the community at large. Operational stability, reliability of the IANA service and the actual placing of the IANA function is of the outmost importance for the whole community.
Best
Elise
Alan, In the existing proposal is MRT the policy enforcing body or is CST? The reason I ask is because CST would have the contract that would provide the authority to enforce the contract. Putting that aside, I would qualify your statement as follows: “policy enforcing body for policy related to the IANA naming functions”. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:42 PM To: Lindeberg, Elise; Lise Fuhr; 'Donna Austin'; 'Christopher Wilkinson'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Balanced MS representation is essential. Although the MRT is not a policy setting body, it IS a policy enforcing body and as such, it needs balanced representation. Alan At 17/12/2014 09:04 AM, Lindeberg, Elise wrote: Dear all, I agree with the comments from Milton, Lise and Dona on a flexible solution and avoiding swelling out of proportions - but I don’t see an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT. The CWG is working on the basis of a model with a distinction between the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) - who will evaluating IANA reports and performance of the IANA function for the community at large, based on a direct customer relationship and the Multistakeholder Review team (MRT), who need to be real Multistakeholder with en equally balanced representation from the community at large. Operational stability, reliability of the IANA service and the actual placing of the IANA function is of the outmost importance for the whole community. Best Elise
Hi All, I wouldn’t disagree with Donna’s comments. But I suspect most of the concerns about making sure we have representation are to do with the central role of the MRT as the current proposed wording has it. People are going to want an entity with so much power (or seen to have the power) to have representative and balanced membership with their constituency in control, of course. It is not that people want to politicise the committee, it is that they already see it as strategic, and therefore needing control. It is a serious concern that I have got with the draft: that we seem to be setting up bodies with central and decisive roles. The proposal hardly (if at all) refers to the MRT engaging with the wider community. That is a problem. I’d say that the MRT should provide the framework for convening the wider stakeholder dialogue, not replace it. I certainly would not be happy with a committee that made momentous decisions like calling in the contract and where Nominet did not have a say. Even having a European ccTLD manager on the committee in my mind would not necessarily be enough. None of its decisions should be taken away from the framework of discussion with, and developing consensus among, the wider stakeholder community. And actually I’d say that the MRT role should be almost completely very boring. Until we recognise this and get the wording right, we are going to have turf-warfare on membership. Cheers Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Donna Austin Sent: 15 December 2014 20:16 To: Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT 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. · One of the four principles identified in the NTIA announcement is: Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and I’m concerned that this is being sometimes forgotten in our discussion. · As direct customers of the IANA service as it relates to naming, I believe that registries should have an important voice in any discussion regarding performance, RFP and any resulting discussions about whether the IANA function should, at any time in the future, be moved out of ICANN. · I don’t believe that ‘equal’ representation, ie 5 from the GAC, 5 from ALAC, 5 from the ccNSO, results in a balanced MRT, particularly when the MRT comprises 21+ members. Alignments or alliances are formed based on particular views and opinions, or ultimate end games. · In this context, I do believe that there is an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 11:00 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Importance: High Good evening: I fear that Milton is engaging in rather naïve wishful thinking. 1. I am not at all convinced that we need anything like the complexities that have been invented by CWG for the NTIA transition, but having done so … 2. The vast attention that has been addressed to this relatively simple issue has doubtless attracted the conviction of stakeholders, who before knew not otherwise, that participation in control of the process has become indispensable. In that context, today, a 'non policy making entity' does not exist. If you do not want to multiply policy making, you need fewer entities, not more. 3. With due respect to Milton, the CWG and other stakeholders concerned, recent experience is that when you ask governments how they wish to be represented, they will let you know. Regards CW On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:49, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: 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> [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu>] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>; gurcharya@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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 <image002.png>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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
This is a practical example of what we are going to experience with the MRT; a political avenue where act of multistakeholder will only exist on paper and not in practice. I asked on the rfp3 call and I will try again here using 2 questions: - What are the daily activities for MRT and how does it get exercised and decisions made on them - What are the occasional activities of the MRT and how do they get exercised and decided upon Hopefully we get those words that will make MRT less attractive (perhaps by removing contract co/RFP? ) Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Dec 2014 19:04, "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
Hi All,
I wouldn’t disagree with Donna’s comments. But I suspect most of the concerns about making sure we have representation are to do with the central role of the MRT as the current proposed wording has it. People are going to want an entity with so much power (or seen to have the power) to have representative and balanced membership with their constituency in control, of course. It is not that people want to politicise the committee, it is that they already see it as strategic, and therefore needing control.
It is a serious concern that I have got with the draft: that we seem to be setting up bodies with central and decisive roles. The proposal hardly (if at all) refers to the MRT engaging with the wider community. That is a problem.
I’d say that the MRT should provide the framework for convening the wider stakeholder dialogue, not replace it. I certainly would not be happy with a committee that made momentous decisions like calling in the contract and where Nominet did not have a say. Even having a European ccTLD manager on the committee in my mind would not necessarily be enough. None of its decisions should be taken away from the framework of discussion with, and developing consensus among, the wider stakeholder community. And actually I’d say that the MRT role should be almost completely very boring.
Until we recognise this and get the wording right, we are going to have turf-warfare on membership.
Cheers
Martin
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Donna Austin *Sent:* 15 December 2014 20:16 *To:* Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
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.
· One of the four principles identified in the NTIA announcement is: *Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; *and I’m concerned that this is being sometimes forgotten in our discussion.
· As direct customers of the IANA service as it relates to naming, I believe that registries should have an important voice in any discussion regarding performance, RFP and any resulting discussions about whether the IANA function should, at any time in the future, be moved out of ICANN.
· I don’t believe that ‘equal’ representation, ie 5 from the GAC, 5 from ALAC, 5 from the ccNSO, results in a balanced MRT, particularly when the MRT comprises 21+ members. Alignments or alliances are formed based on particular views and opinions, or ultimate end games.
· In this context, I do believe that there is an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT.
Thanks,
Donna
[image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA 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* <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
*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 <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Wilkinson *Sent:* Monday, 15 December 2014 11:00 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT *Importance:* High
Good evening:
I fear that Milton is engaging in rather naïve wishful thinking.
1. I am not at all convinced that we need anything like the complexities that have been invented by CWG for the NTIA transition, but having done so …
2. The vast attention that has been addressed to this relatively simple issue has doubtless attracted the conviction of stakeholders, who before knew not otherwise, that participation in control of the process has become indispensable. In that context, today, a 'non policy making entity' does not exist. If you do not want to multiply policy making, you need fewer entities, not more.
3. With due respect to Milton, the CWG and other stakeholders concerned, recent experience is that when you ask governments how they wish to be represented, they will let you know.
Regards
CW
On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:49, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
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 <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 <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
<image002.png>*D**ONNA 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* <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
*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 <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 <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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Seun asked: - What are the daily activities for MRT and how does it get exercised and decisions made on them GSS: The MRT has no daily activities. - What are the occasional activities of the MRT and how do they get exercised and decided upon The activities of the MRT are in the Draft Proposal, as follows (some are occasional and some periodic). The decisionmaking methods of the MRT are still under discussion; what do you think they should be? .· Contracting decisions, including: o Identifying terms for the agreement with the IANA Functions Operator for the execution of the naming-related functions; o Managing a rebidding (RFP) process in the case of performance deficiencies and as part of a regular rebidding process; o Selection of the IANA Functions Operator for naming-related Functions pursuant to any rebidding (RFP) process; o Renewal or termination of the IANA Functions Contract for naming-related functions and; o Selection of professional advisors to draft / modify contract language; · Budget Review o The MRT would meet annually with ICANN staff during the course of the development of ICANN’s annual budget to review and discuss ICANN’s proposed budget for the IANA Naming Functions and to discuss funding for improvements to the IANA Naming Functions and the introduction of new services, as deemed necessary by the MRT · Addressing any escalation issues raised by the CSC o Communicating with the IANA Functions Operator and/or directly affected parties to address such issues; and o Engaging in other enforcement behavior up to and including initiating a termination for breach and/or rebidding (RFP) procedure · Performing certain elements of administration currently set forth in the IANA Functions Contract and currently being carried out by the NTIA o C.2.12.a Program Manager (evaluation of). o C.3.2 Secure Systems Notification (evaluation of). o C.4.1 Meetings – (perform) Program reviews and site visits shall occur annually. o C.4.5 (participate in the development of, receive and review) Customer Service Survey (CSS) o C.4.4 (receive and review) Performance Standards Reports o C.4.6 (receive and review) Final Report o C.4.7 (provide) Inspection and Acceptance o C.5.1 Audit Data – (receive and review annual report) o C.5.2 (receive and review) Root Zone Management Audit Data o C.5.3 External Auditor (ensure performance of, receive and review results) o C. 6 Conflict of interest requirements (annual validation that the contractor is meeting stated requirements) o C. 7 Continuity of Operations (annual validation that the contractor is meeting stated requirements) *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@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> * *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a practical example of what we are going to experience with the MRT; a political avenue where act of multistakeholder will only exist on paper and not in practice. I asked on the rfp3 call and I will try again here using 2 questions:
- What are the daily activities for MRT and how does it get exercised and decisions made on them - What are the occasional activities of the MRT and how do they get exercised and decided upon
Hopefully we get those words that will make MRT less attractive (perhaps by removing contract co/RFP? )
Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Dec 2014 19:04, "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
Hi All,
I wouldn’t disagree with Donna’s comments. But I suspect most of the concerns about making sure we have representation are to do with the central role of the MRT as the current proposed wording has it. People are going to want an entity with so much power (or seen to have the power) to have representative and balanced membership with their constituency in control, of course. It is not that people want to politicise the committee, it is that they already see it as strategic, and therefore needing control.
It is a serious concern that I have got with the draft: that we seem to be setting up bodies with central and decisive roles. The proposal hardly (if at all) refers to the MRT engaging with the wider community. That is a problem.
I’d say that the MRT should provide the framework for convening the wider stakeholder dialogue, not replace it. I certainly would not be happy with a committee that made momentous decisions like calling in the contract and where Nominet did not have a say. Even having a European ccTLD manager on the committee in my mind would not necessarily be enough. None of its decisions should be taken away from the framework of discussion with, and developing consensus among, the wider stakeholder community. And actually I’d say that the MRT role should be almost completely very boring.
Until we recognise this and get the wording right, we are going to have turf-warfare on membership.
Cheers
Martin
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Donna Austin *Sent:* 15 December 2014 20:16 *To:* Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
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.
· One of the four principles identified in the NTIA announcement is: *Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; *and I’m concerned that this is being sometimes forgotten in our discussion.
· As direct customers of the IANA service as it relates to naming, I believe that registries should have an important voice in any discussion regarding performance, RFP and any resulting discussions about whether the IANA function should, at any time in the future, be moved out of ICANN.
· I don’t believe that ‘equal’ representation, ie 5 from the GAC, 5 from ALAC, 5 from the ccNSO, results in a balanced MRT, particularly when the MRT comprises 21+ members. Alignments or alliances are formed based on particular views and opinions, or ultimate end games.
· In this context, I do believe that there is an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT.
Thanks,
Donna
[image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA 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* <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
*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 <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Wilkinson *Sent:* Monday, 15 December 2014 11:00 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT *Importance:* High
Good evening:
I fear that Milton is engaging in rather naïve wishful thinking.
1. I am not at all convinced that we need anything like the complexities that have been invented by CWG for the NTIA transition, but having done so …
2. The vast attention that has been addressed to this relatively simple issue has doubtless attracted the conviction of stakeholders, who before knew not otherwise, that participation in control of the process has become indispensable. In that context, today, a 'non policy making entity' does not exist. If you do not want to multiply policy making, you need fewer entities, not more.
3. With due respect to Milton, the CWG and other stakeholders concerned, recent experience is that when you ask governments how they wish to be represented, they will let you know.
Regards
CW
On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:49, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
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 <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 <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
<image002.png>*D**ONNA 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* <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
*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 <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 <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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Greg, First I will like to mention that going forward, I am still of the opinion that a stewardship that is achieved through strong internal accountability mechanism will be more efficient and practical. Having said that, kindly find my response inset: On 17 Dec 2014 21:49, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Seun asked:
- What are the daily activities for MRT and how does it get exercised and
decisions made on them
GSS: The MRT has no daily activities.
Okay noted, but.....
- What are the occasional activities of the MRT and how do they get exercised and decided upon
The activities of the MRT are in the Draft Proposal, as follows (some are occasional and some periodic).
....the activities listed below are quite enormous and will most likely become a weekly affair if not daily. Looking at the activities and before i make further suggestions/comments, I will just like to get one thing clear; those activities are going to be made possible by the resources of the operator right? (Most especially funding)
The decisionmaking methods of the MRT are still under discussion; what do you think they should be?
I think determining the decision making method/process will be largely dependent on what I have asked above which is the level of independence that will exist between the contract awarder (MRT) and the contractor (IANA operator). Could you kindly clarify to me what possible resource sharing/exchange will exist between the 2 parties? Thanks Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
.· Contracting decisions, including:
o Identifying terms for the agreement with the IANA Functions Operator for the execution of the naming-related functions;
o Managing a rebidding (RFP) process in the case of performance deficiencies and as part of a regular rebidding process;
o Selection of the IANA Functions Operator for naming-related Functions pursuant to any rebidding (RFP) process;
o Renewal or termination of the IANA Functions Contract for naming-related functions and;
o Selection of professional advisors to draft / modify contract language;
· Budget Review
o The MRT would meet annually with ICANN staff during the course of the development of ICANN’s annual budget to review and discuss ICANN’s proposed budget for the IANA Naming Functions and to discuss funding for improvements to the IANA Naming Functions and the introduction of new services, as deemed necessary by the MRT
· Addressing any escalation issues raised by the CSC
o Communicating with the IANA Functions Operator and/or directly affected parties to address such issues; and
o Engaging in other enforcement behavior up to and including initiating a termination for breach and/or rebidding (RFP) procedure
· Performing certain elements of administration currently set forth in the IANA Functions Contract and currently being carried out by the NTIA
o C.2.12.a Program Manager (evaluation of).
o C.3.2 Secure Systems Notification (evaluation of).
o C.4.1 Meetings – (perform) Program reviews and site visits shall occur annually.
o C.4.5 (participate in the development of, receive and review) Customer Service Survey (CSS)
o C.4.4 (receive and review) Performance Standards Reports
o C.4.6 (receive and review) Final Report
o C.4.7 (provide) Inspection and Acceptance
o C.5.1 Audit Data – (receive and review annual report)
o C.5.2 (receive and review) Root Zone Management Audit Data
o C.5.3 External Auditor (ensure performance of, receive and review results)
o C. 6 Conflict of interest requirements (annual validation that the contractor is meeting stated requirements)
o C. 7 Continuity of Operations (annual validation that the contractor is meeting stated requirements)
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@lawabel.com
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com
www.lawabel.com
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a practical example of what we are going to experience with the
MRT; a political avenue where act of multistakeholder will only exist on paper and not in practice. I asked on the rfp3 call and I will try again here using 2 questions:
- What are the daily activities for MRT and how does it get exercised
and decisions made on them
- What are the occasional activities of the MRT and how do they get exercised and decided upon
Hopefully we get those words that will make MRT less attractive (perhaps by removing contract co/RFP? )
Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 16 Dec 2014 19:04, "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
Hi All,
I wouldn’t disagree with Donna’s comments. But I suspect most of the
concerns about making sure we have representation are to do with the central role of the MRT as the current proposed wording has it. People are going to want an entity with so much power (or seen to have the power) to have representative and balanced membership with their constituency in control, of course. It is not that people want to politicise the committee, it is that they already see it as strategic, and therefore needing control.
It is a serious concern that I have got with the draft: that we seem
to be setting up bodies with central and decisive roles. The proposal hardly (if at all) refers to the MRT engaging with the wider community. That is a problem.
I’d say that the MRT should provide the framework for convening the
wider stakeholder dialogue, not replace it. I certainly would not be happy with a committee that made momentous decisions like calling in the contract and where Nominet did not have a say. Even having a European ccTLD manager on the committee in my mind would not necessarily be enough. None of its decisions should be taken away from the framework of discussion with, and developing consensus among, the wider stakeholder community. And actually I’d say that the MRT role should be almost completely very boring.
Until we recognise this and get the wording right, we are going to have
turf-warfare on membership.
Cheers
Martin
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Donna Austin
Sent: 15 December 2014 20:16 To: Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
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.
· One of the four principles identified in the NTIA announcement is: Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and I’m concerned that this is being sometimes forgotten in our discussion.
· As direct customers of the IANA service as it relates to naming, I believe that registries should have an important voice in any discussion regarding performance, RFP and any resulting discussions about whether the IANA function should, at any time in the future, be moved out of ICANN.
· I don’t believe that ‘equal’ representation, ie 5 from the GAC, 5 from ALAC, 5 from the ccNSO, results in a balanced MRT, particularly when the MRT comprises 21+ members. Alignments or alliances are formed based on particular views and opinions, or ultimate end games.
· In this context, I do believe that there is an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT.
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 Christopher Wilkinson Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 11:00 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Importance: High
Good evening:
I fear that Milton is engaging in rather naïve wishful thinking.
1. I am not at all convinced that we need anything like the complexities that have been invented by CWG for the NTIA transition, but having done so …
2. The vast attention that has been addressed to this relatively simple issue has doubtless attracted the conviction of stakeholders, who before knew not otherwise, that participation in control of the process has become indispensable. In that context, today, a 'non policy making entity' does not exist. If you do not want to multiply policy making, you need fewer entities, not more.
3. With due respect to Milton, the CWG and other stakeholders concerned, recent experience is that when you ask governments how they wish to be represented, they will let you know.
Regards
CW
On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:49, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
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
<image002.png>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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Completely agree – the role should be boring. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary. Follow Neustar: [http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture.png] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture%20(1)(1).png] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture%20(2).png] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustarinc> ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 1:04 PM To: Donna Austin; Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Hi All, I wouldn’t disagree with Donna’s comments. But I suspect most of the concerns about making sure we have representation are to do with the central role of the MRT as the current proposed wording has it. People are going to want an entity with so much power (or seen to have the power) to have representative and balanced membership with their constituency in control, of course. It is not that people want to politicise the committee, it is that they already see it as strategic, and therefore needing control. It is a serious concern that I have got with the draft: that we seem to be setting up bodies with central and decisive roles. The proposal hardly (if at all) refers to the MRT engaging with the wider community. That is a problem. I’d say that the MRT should provide the framework for convening the wider stakeholder dialogue, not replace it. I certainly would not be happy with a committee that made momentous decisions like calling in the contract and where Nominet did not have a say. Even having a European ccTLD manager on the committee in my mind would not necessarily be enough. None of its decisions should be taken away from the framework of discussion with, and developing consensus among, the wider stakeholder community. And actually I’d say that the MRT role should be almost completely very boring. Until we recognise this and get the wording right, we are going to have turf-warfare on membership. Cheers Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Donna Austin Sent: 15 December 2014 20:16 To: Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT 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. · One of the four principles identified in the NTIA announcement is: Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and I’m concerned that this is being sometimes forgotten in our discussion. · As direct customers of the IANA service as it relates to naming, I believe that registries should have an important voice in any discussion regarding performance, RFP and any resulting discussions about whether the IANA function should, at any time in the future, be moved out of ICANN. · I don’t believe that ‘equal’ representation, ie 5 from the GAC, 5 from ALAC, 5 from the ccNSO, results in a balanced MRT, particularly when the MRT comprises 21+ members. Alignments or alliances are formed based on particular views and opinions, or ultimate end games. · In this context, I do believe that there is an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ariservices.com_&d=A...> Follow us on Twitter<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ARIservices...> 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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 11:00 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Importance: High Good evening: I fear that Milton is engaging in rather naïve wishful thinking. 1. I am not at all convinced that we need anything like the complexities that have been invented by CWG for the NTIA transition, but having done so … 2. The vast attention that has been addressed to this relatively simple issue has doubtless attracted the conviction of stakeholders, who before knew not otherwise, that participation in control of the process has become indispensable. In that context, today, a 'non policy making entity' does not exist. If you do not want to multiply policy making, you need fewer entities, not more. 3. With due respect to Milton, the CWG and other stakeholders concerned, recent experience is that when you ask governments how they wish to be represented, they will let you know. Regards CW On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:49, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: 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> [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu>] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>; gurcharya@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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 <image002.png>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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ariservices.com_&d=A...> Follow us on Twitter<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ARIservices...> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=CiZewCvDnKdQSl41YbT__SvP8oVmGkl-fdXAnLXX7HY&s=byCwrA-snl7Ko3De-C92XbVAWRPryT9MIkfNjaCh1fI&e=>
Hi Martin Some of it has to do with the role of the MRT and the fact that it is still largely undefined, and most of it has to do with the current lack of recognition of the direct customers in the discussion. I agree with you “… that the MRT should provide the framework for convening the wider stakeholder dialogue, not replace it.” I made the point during the RFP3 call on Monday, that the NTIA had sought public input prior to issuing the RFP for the IANA functions contract and this is a model that could be followed by the MRT on IANA performance, rebid discussions etc. From a discussion I had with Suzanne Radell and Ashley Heineman from NTIA, about what they do in terms of administering the contract, monitoring IANA performance, and authorising root zone changes etc, what they do is repetitive and dare I say it possibly boring. So, I agree with you on this point as well. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, 16 December 2014 10:04 AM To: Donna Austin; Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Hi All, I wouldn’t disagree with Donna’s comments. But I suspect most of the concerns about making sure we have representation are to do with the central role of the MRT as the current proposed wording has it. People are going to want an entity with so much power (or seen to have the power) to have representative and balanced membership with their constituency in control, of course. It is not that people want to politicise the committee, it is that they already see it as strategic, and therefore needing control. It is a serious concern that I have got with the draft: that we seem to be setting up bodies with central and decisive roles. The proposal hardly (if at all) refers to the MRT engaging with the wider community. That is a problem. I’d say that the MRT should provide the framework for convening the wider stakeholder dialogue, not replace it. I certainly would not be happy with a committee that made momentous decisions like calling in the contract and where Nominet did not have a say. Even having a European ccTLD manager on the committee in my mind would not necessarily be enough. None of its decisions should be taken away from the framework of discussion with, and developing consensus among, the wider stakeholder community. And actually I’d say that the MRT role should be almost completely very boring. Until we recognise this and get the wording right, we are going to have turf-warfare on membership. Cheers Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Donna Austin Sent: 15 December 2014 20:16 To: Christopher Wilkinson; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT 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. · One of the four principles identified in the NTIA announcement is: Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and I’m concerned that this is being sometimes forgotten in our discussion. · As direct customers of the IANA service as it relates to naming, I believe that registries should have an important voice in any discussion regarding performance, RFP and any resulting discussions about whether the IANA function should, at any time in the future, be moved out of ICANN. · I don’t believe that ‘equal’ representation, ie 5 from the GAC, 5 from ALAC, 5 from the ccNSO, results in a balanced MRT, particularly when the MRT comprises 21+ members. Alignments or alliances are formed based on particular views and opinions, or ultimate end games. · In this context, I do believe that there is an argument for registries (ccs and gs) having greater rather than equal representation on the MRT. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson Sent: Monday, 15 December 2014 11:00 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Importance: High Good evening: I fear that Milton is engaging in rather naïve wishful thinking. 1. I am not at all convinced that we need anything like the complexities that have been invented by CWG for the NTIA transition, but having done so … 2. The vast attention that has been addressed to this relatively simple issue has doubtless attracted the conviction of stakeholders, who before knew not otherwise, that participation in control of the process has become indispensable. In that context, today, a 'non policy making entity' does not exist. If you do not want to multiply policy making, you need fewer entities, not more. 3. With due respect to Milton, the CWG and other stakeholders concerned, recent experience is that when you ask governments how they wish to be represented, they will let you know. Regards CW On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:49, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: 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> [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu>] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>; gurcharya@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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 <image002.png>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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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.
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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987
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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I believe that any such document must be shared with the CWG, if only with the Co-Chairs or some specific sub-set of the CWG who of course must sign an appropriate confidentiality document and perhaps get clearance for what they share (with an appeal process in the case of a disagreement). Alan At 17/12/2014 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad 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>https://community.icann.org/x/MYcQAw
Best, Grace
From: Guru Acharya <<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>gurcharya@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri@acm.org> Cc: "<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship@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" <<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri@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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
At a minimum, we should ask what needs to be done to allow some review of it. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:08 AM To: Grace Abuhamad; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT I believe that any such document must be shared with the CWG, if only with the Co-Chairs or some specific sub-set of the CWG who of course must sign an appropriate confidentiality document and perhaps get clearance for what they share (with an appeal process in the case of a disagreement). Alan At 17/12/2014 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad 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@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@acm.org<mailto:avri@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@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear all, For a more fulsome response to your questions on obtaining the Contingency Plan, please submit a request through ICANN¹s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:55 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT At a minimum, we should ask what needs to be done to allow some review of it. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:08 AM To: Grace Abuhamad; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT I believe that any such document must be shared with the CWG, if only with the Co-Chairs or some specific sub-set of the CWG who of course must sign an appropriate confidentiality document and perhaps get clearance for what they share (with an appeal process in the case of a disagreement). Alan At 17/12/2014 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad 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@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> " < cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Grace, Given the tight timelines involved here could a member of staff manage/expedite a response on behalf of the chairs/CWG? From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 5:51 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Alan Greenberg; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Dear all, For a more fulsome response to your questions on obtaining the Contingency Plan, please submit a request through ICANN's Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:55 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT At a minimum, we should ask what needs to be done to allow some review of it. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:08 AM To: Grace Abuhamad; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT I believe that any such document must be shared with the CWG, if only with the Co-Chairs or some specific sub-set of the CWG who of course must sign an appropriate confidentiality document and perhaps get clearance for what they share (with an appeal process in the case of a disagreement). Alan At 17/12/2014 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad 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@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@acm.org<mailto:avri@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@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi James, I understand that there is a tight timeline, but the person seeking the information should submit the request, not staff. --Grace From: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Date: Monday, December 22, 2014 4:08 AM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Hi Grace, Given the tight timelines involved here could a member of staff manage/expedite a response on behalf of the chairs/CWG? From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 5:51 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Alan Greenberg; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Dear all, For a more fulsome response to your questions on obtaining the Contingency Plan, please submit a request through ICANN¹s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en. From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:55 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT At a minimum, we should ask what needs to be done to allow some review of it. Chuck From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:08 AM To: Grace Abuhamad; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT I believe that any such document must be shared with the CWG, if only with the Co-Chairs or some specific sub-set of the CWG who of course must sign an appropriate confidentiality document and perhaps get clearance for what they share (with an appeal process in the case of a disagreement). Alan At 17/12/2014 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad 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@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> " < cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I must say that I find this level of bureaucracy totally unreasonable. This is not someone from outside the organization trying to get ICANN to reveal some secret, it is a properly chartered ICANN CWG trying to understand its task mandated by the Board. Alan At 22/12/2014 09:49 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Hi James, I understand that there is a tight timeline, but the person seeking the information should submit the request, not staff. --Grace
From: James Gannon <<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>james@cyberinvasion.net> Date: Monday, December 22, 2014 4:08 AM To: Grace Abuhamad <<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>grace.abuhamad@icann.org>, "Gomes, Chuck" <<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>cgomes@verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Guru Acharya <<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>gurcharya@gmail.com>, Avri Doria <<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri@acm.org> Cc: "<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Hi Grace,
Given the tight timelines involved here could a member of staff manage/expedite a response on behalf of the chairs/CWG?
From: <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 5:51 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Alan Greenberg; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria Cc: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Dear all, For a more fulsome response to your questions on obtaining the Contingency Plan, please submit a request through ICANNs Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, available at <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en.
From: <Gomes>, Chuck <<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:55 AM To: Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Grace Abuhamad <<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>grace.abuhamad@icann.org>, Guru Acharya <<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>gurcharya@gmail.com>, Avri Doria <<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri@acm.org> Cc: "<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
At a minimum, we should ask what needs to be done to allow some review of it.
Chuck
From:<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:08 AM To: Grace Abuhamad; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria Cc: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
I believe that any such document must be shared with the CWG, if only with the Co-Chairs or some specific sub-set of the CWG who of course must sign an appropriate confidentiality document and perhaps get clearance for what they share (with an appeal process in the case of a disagreement).
Alan
At 17/12/2014 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad 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>https://community.icann.org/x/MYcQAw
Best, Grace
From: Guru Acharya <<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>gurcharya@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri@acm.org> Cc: "<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> cwg-stewardship@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" <<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri@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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Alan Greenberg writes:
I must say that I find this level of bureaucracy totally unreasonable. This is not someone from outside the organization trying to get ICANN to reveal some secret, it is a properly chartered ICANN CWG trying to understand its task mandated by the Board.
As far as I know, the CWG didn't ask for the document. One could argue that it is better not to since it might influence the thinking of the group. jaap
Hi, I agree. Forcing this group to go through the DIDP is not the full transparency and cooperation that we should expect in this process. avri On 22-Dec-14 22:16, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I must say that I find this level of bureaucracy totally unreasonable. This is not someone from outside the organization trying to get ICANN to reveal some secret, it is a properly chartered ICANN CWG trying to understand its task mandated by the Board.
Alan
At 22/12/2014 09:49 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Hi James, I understand that there is a tight timeline, but the person seeking the information should submit the request, not staff. --Grace
From: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net> > Date: Monday, December 22, 2014 4:08 AM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> >, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com <mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Hi Grace,
Given the tight timelines involved here could a member of staff manage/expedite a response on behalf of the chairs/CWG?
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Grace Abuhamad *Sent:* Monday, December 22, 2014 5:51 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Alan Greenberg; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Dear all, For a more fulsome response to your questions on obtaining the Contingency Plan, please submit a request through ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en>.
*From: *<Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> *Date: *Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:55 AM *To: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> >, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com <mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> *Subject: *RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
At a minimum, we should ask what needs to be done to allow some review of it.
Chuck
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:08 AM *To:* Grace Abuhamad; Guru Acharya; Avri Doria *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
I believe that any such document must be shared with the CWG, if only with the Co-Chairs or some specific sub-set of the CWG who of course must sign an appropriate confidentiality document and perhaps get clearance for what they share (with an appeal process in the case of a disagreement).
Alan
At 17/12/2014 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad 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 <https://community.icann.org/x/MYcQAw> * *Best, Grace
From: Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com <mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@acm.org <mailto:avri@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@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
hi all, hi Grace Can you let us know who made that decision, and on what basis? Many thanks Jordan On 18 December 2014 at 04:46, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@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@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
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 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@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@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M... ) MRT Composition Strawman Matrix ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa... ). 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@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 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@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@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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@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-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M...) MRT Composition Strawman Matrix (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa...).
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@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 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@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@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> * *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Wilkinson < lists@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@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-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M... ) MRT Composition Strawman Matrix ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa... ).
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@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 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad < grace.abuhamad@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@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Greg and other CWG members: Let me make an appeal to basic rationality in our consideration of the composition of the MRT. I cannot understand the rationale for these 27-member MRT proposals. They seem to be based on the idea that in order to adequately enforce policy _implementation_, the MRT must completely reproduce the representational structure of the policy _making_ organs. Is not the logical error here rather obvious? Because we do have an appeals process, any entity dissatisfied with the implementation of policy has a channel for redress. But the MRT should be primarily concerned with the operation of the IANA functions, not with policy making. Let’s not forget: Any policy that is being implemented by IANA is a product of THE ENTIRE GNSO, and is also supposed to have the assent of the board after considering advice from the ACs. In other words, before any policy can be passed on for IANA implementation, it must have something close to consensus support. Given GNSO voting rules, it must have support across both contracted and non-contracted houses. The issue at that point becomes ensuring proper implementation – not altering or rewriting the policy in ways that reflect the preferences of individual stakeholder groups. In composing the MRT, we cannot lose sight of its basic function, and I think some of us are. By including the entire GNSO policy making structure in the MRT, and large numbers of individual AC members, we create a very big risk that issues related to policy implementation by IANA become ways to re-fight policy making battles. In other words, smaller constituencies or AC units that may not have fully agreed with a policy that was _passed and adopted_ by the broader community might try to use the MRT to subvert or change policy implementation. Greg you have replied to me that it is difficult to “compress” the 3 Commercial SG constituencies into a single person on the MRT. To that I reply that in 10 years of observing the GNSO I have never once seen the 3 CSG constituencies vote differently on a major policy proposal. Even if there are one or two instances of divergence on minor procedural issues I just cannot comprehend why the MRT, whose mission is to oversee accurate implementation and efficient performance of the IANA functions, needs to have a separate representative from BC or IPC, or NCUC and NPOC. I am thinking more and more that the MRT should be almost completely orthogonal to the GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC policy making complex. Our mental model of what it is and who should be on it needs to be completely detached from the policy making apparatus. We might think of drawing representatives from the regional network operating groups (NOGs), from the IAB/IETEF/ISOC, with a leavening of registry operators and civil society and prominent public officials to ensure a public interest perspective. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:22 PM To: Christopher Wilkinson Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT 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@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@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@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@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-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M...) MRT Composition Strawman Matrix (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa...). 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@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@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@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@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@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@acm.org<mailto:avri@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@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Greg and other CWG members:
I am thinking more and more that the MRT should be almost completely orthogonal to the GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC policy making complex. Our mental model of what it is and who should be on it needs to be completely detached from the policy making apparatus. We might think of drawing representatives from the regional network operating groups (NOGs), from the IAB/IETEF/ISOC, with a leavening of registry operators and civil society and prominent public officials to ensure a public interest perspective.
Just to mention that i disagree with this view, members of the MRT should be drawn from the SO/ACs which is a known multistakeholder community but the activities of MRT is what needs to be all inclusive and not representative. The activities of the MRT needs to be completely non-representational as much as possible. The charter of MRT should make that clear distinction and on a lighter note, like i mentioned during the rfp3 call, maybe the name MRT is also putting too much weight on representation ;) Thanks Cheers!
--MM
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:22 PM *To:* Christopher Wilkinson *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
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@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Wilkinson < lists@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@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-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M... )
MRT Composition Strawman Matrix ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa... ).
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@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 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@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@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM *To: *Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Seun: I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are drawing between "all inclusive" and "representative." Can you elaborate, please? That will help me understand why you are saying that its work should be "non-representational." I would have thought that having the Members act as representatives of their communities would be a good thing (subject only to the caveat that the group as a whole needs to work for the common good and not to satisfy a series of special interests). 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@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> * *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Greg and other CWG members:
I am thinking more and more that the MRT should be almost completely orthogonal to the GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC policy making complex. Our mental model of what it is and who should be on it needs to be completely detached from the policy making apparatus. We might think of drawing representatives from the regional network operating groups (NOGs), from the IAB/IETEF/ISOC, with a leavening of registry operators and civil society and prominent public officials to ensure a public interest perspective.
Just to mention that i disagree with this view, members of the MRT should be drawn from the SO/ACs which is a known multistakeholder community but the activities of MRT is what needs to be all inclusive and not representative. The activities of the MRT needs to be completely non-representational as much as possible. The charter of MRT should make that clear distinction and on a lighter note, like i mentioned during the rfp3 call, maybe the name MRT is also putting too much weight on representation ;)
Thanks
Cheers!
--MM
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:22 PM *To:* Christopher Wilkinson *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
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@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Wilkinson < lists@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@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-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M... )
MRT Composition Strawman Matrix ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa... ).
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@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 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad < grace.abuhamad@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@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM *To: *Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Hello Greg, On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Seun:
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are drawing between "all inclusive" and "representative." Can you elaborate, please?
I will try to to explain what i mean by the statement below: The activities of the MRT needs to be completely non-representational as
much as possible.
This simply means that although the members of the team are drawn from the relevant SO/ACs (i.e GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC) but the team's decision making process should be open to anybody globally (which includes the communities of members of the team) so thats what i mean by all-inclusive. That will help me understand why you are saying that its work should be
"non-representational." I would have thought that having the Members act as representatives of their communities would be a good thing (subject only to the caveat that the group as a whole needs to work for the common good and not to satisfy a series of special interests).
No that would defeat the goal of providing means for communities/individual outside ICANN to participate. However in all these, we should note that MRT by design will be a last resort trigger and will only come in when the normal reconciliation processes of the SO/AC has proved abortive. For example, if the policy implementation wg of GNSO follow its processes to addressing its concern with the IANA operator and it still proved abortive, then the MRT comes in to develop a community acceptable solution which the ICANN board will be required to implement. I hope this clarifies what i meant. Thanks
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@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Greg and other CWG members:
I am thinking more and more that the MRT should be almost completely orthogonal to the GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC policy making complex. Our mental model of what it is and who should be on it needs to be completely detached from the policy making apparatus. We might think of drawing representatives from the regional network operating groups (NOGs), from the IAB/IETEF/ISOC, with a leavening of registry operators and civil society and prominent public officials to ensure a public interest perspective.
Just to mention that i disagree with this view, members of the MRT should be drawn from the SO/ACs which is a known multistakeholder community but the activities of MRT is what needs to be all inclusive and not representative. The activities of the MRT needs to be completely non-representational as much as possible. The charter of MRT should make that clear distinction and on a lighter note, like i mentioned during the rfp3 call, maybe the name MRT is also putting too much weight on representation ;)
Thanks
Cheers!
--MM
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:22 PM *To:* Christopher Wilkinson *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
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@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Wilkinson < lists@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@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-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M... )
MRT Composition Strawman Matrix ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa... ).
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@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 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad < grace.abuhamad@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@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM *To: *Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
If I understand what you are saying Seun (and maybe I don’t), I do not agree. You may be right in cases of simple administrative oversight responsibilities but in cases of major MRT decisions like RFPs where I think we need broad community input, having MRT members who represent large segments of stakeholders would facilitate getting the broad input that would be needed. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:45 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Hello Greg, On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Seun: I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are drawing between "all inclusive" and "representative." Can you elaborate, please? I will try to to explain what i mean by the statement below: The activities of the MRT needs to be completely non-representational as much as possible. This simply means that although the members of the team are drawn from the relevant SO/ACs (i.e GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC) but the team's decision making process should be open to anybody globally (which includes the communities of members of the team) so thats what i mean by all-inclusive. That will help me understand why you are saying that its work should be "non-representational." I would have thought that having the Members act as representatives of their communities would be a good thing (subject only to the caveat that the group as a whole needs to work for the common good and not to satisfy a series of special interests). No that would defeat the goal of providing means for communities/individual outside ICANN to participate. However in all these, we should note that MRT by design will be a last resort trigger and will only come in when the normal reconciliation processes of the SO/AC has proved abortive. For example, if the policy implementation wg of GNSO follow its processes to addressing its concern with the IANA operator and it still proved abortive, then the MRT comes in to develop a community acceptable solution which the ICANN board will be required to implement. I hope this clarifies what i meant. Thanks 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@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: Greg and other CWG members: I am thinking more and more that the MRT should be almost completely orthogonal to the GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC policy making complex. Our mental model of what it is and who should be on it needs to be completely detached from the policy making apparatus. We might think of drawing representatives from the regional network operating groups (NOGs), from the IAB/IETEF/ISOC, with a leavening of registry operators and civil society and prominent public officials to ensure a public interest perspective. Just to mention that i disagree with this view, members of the MRT should be drawn from the SO/ACs which is a known multistakeholder community but the activities of MRT is what needs to be all inclusive and not representative. The activities of the MRT needs to be completely non-representational as much as possible. The charter of MRT should make that clear distinction and on a lighter note, like i mentioned during the rfp3 call, maybe the name MRT is also putting too much weight on representation ;) Thanks Cheers! --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:22 PM To: Christopher Wilkinson Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT 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<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@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@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@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-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M...) MRT Composition Strawman Matrix (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa...). 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@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@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@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@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@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@acm.org<mailto:avri@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@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Hi Chuck, Thanks I think I can understand the sentiment (the offlist discussion was quite helpful). In such cases you mentioned like the RFP(if it becomes necessary), MRT could initiate a process that creates a temporary committee (that will include the broader community) and then that committee will conduct the RFP process and send its report to MRT. Once done, the committee is dissolved till another time there is such need. Like I don't expect this current CWG to exist after transition Another way could be that when such need arises, MRT temporarily co-opts people from other communities(including outside ICANN?) to achieve the goal and after that the MRT shrinks back to its smaller size. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 20 Dec 2014 16:13, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
If I understand what you are saying Seun (and maybe I don’t), I do not agree. You may be right in cases of simple administrative oversight responsibilities but in cases of major MRT decisions like RFPs where I think we need broad community input, having MRT members who represent large segments of stakeholders would facilitate getting the broad input that would be needed.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Friday, December 19, 2014 1:45 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
Hello Greg,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Seun:
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are drawing between "all inclusive" and "representative." Can you elaborate, please?
I will try to to explain what i mean by the statement below:
The activities of the MRT needs to be completely non-representational as much as possible.
This simply means that although the members of the team are drawn from the relevant SO/ACs (i.e GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC) but the team's decision making process should be open to anybody globally (which includes the communities of members of the team) so thats what i mean by all-inclusive.
That will help me understand why you are saying that its work should be "non-representational." I would have thought that having the Members act as representatives of their communities would be a good thing (subject only to the caveat that the group as a whole needs to work for the common good and not to satisfy a series of special interests).
No that would defeat the goal of providing means for communities/individual outside ICANN to participate.
However in all these, we should note that MRT by design will be a last resort trigger and will only come in when the normal reconciliation processes of the SO/AC has proved abortive. For example, if the policy implementation wg of GNSO follow its processes to addressing its concern with the IANA operator and it still proved abortive, then the MRT comes in to develop a community acceptable solution which the ICANN board will be required to implement.
I hope this clarifies what i meant.
Thanks
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@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Greg and other CWG members:
I am thinking more and more that the MRT should be almost completely orthogonal to the GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC policy making complex. Our mental model of what it is and who should be on it needs to be completely detached from the policy making apparatus. We might think of drawing representatives from the regional network operating groups (NOGs), from the IAB/IETEF/ISOC, with a leavening of registry operators and civil society and prominent public officials to ensure a public interest perspective.
Just to mention that i disagree with this view, members of the MRT should be drawn from the SO/ACs which is a known multistakeholder community but the activities of MRT is what needs to be all inclusive and not representative. The activities of the MRT needs to be completely non-representational as much as possible. The charter of MRT should make that clear distinction and on a lighter note, like i mentioned during the rfp3 call, maybe the name MRT is also putting too much weight on representation ;)
Thanks
Cheers!
--MM
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:22 PM *To:* Christopher Wilkinson *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
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@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Wilkinson < lists@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@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-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M... )
MRT Composition Strawman Matrix ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa... ).
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@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 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@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@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM *To: *Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: * *http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> **Mobile: +2348035233535 <%2B2348035233535>* *alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: * *http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> **Mobile: +2348035233535 <%2B2348035233535>* *alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
It has been helpful to me too Seun. Thanks for that. My concern is that forming a representative committee takes quite a bit of time to do well so my personal opinion is that it is better to have one in place but thanks for your idea. Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 2:32 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Greg Shatan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Hi Chuck, Thanks I think I can understand the sentiment (the offlist discussion was quite helpful). In such cases you mentioned like the RFP(if it becomes necessary), MRT could initiate a process that creates a temporary committee (that will include the broader community) and then that committee will conduct the RFP process and send its report to MRT. Once done, the committee is dissolved till another time there is such need. Like I don't expect this current CWG to exist after transition Another way could be that when such need arises, MRT temporarily co-opts people from other communities(including outside ICANN?) to achieve the goal and after that the MRT shrinks back to its smaller size. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 20 Dec 2014 16:13, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: If I understand what you are saying Seun (and maybe I don’t), I do not agree. You may be right in cases of simple administrative oversight responsibilities but in cases of major MRT decisions like RFPs where I think we need broad community input, having MRT members who represent large segments of stakeholders would facilitate getting the broad input that would be needed. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:45 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Hello Greg, On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Seun: I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are drawing between "all inclusive" and "representative." Can you elaborate, please? I will try to to explain what i mean by the statement below: The activities of the MRT needs to be completely non-representational as much as possible. This simply means that although the members of the team are drawn from the relevant SO/ACs (i.e GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC) but the team's decision making process should be open to anybody globally (which includes the communities of members of the team) so thats what i mean by all-inclusive. That will help me understand why you are saying that its work should be "non-representational." I would have thought that having the Members act as representatives of their communities would be a good thing (subject only to the caveat that the group as a whole needs to work for the common good and not to satisfy a series of special interests). No that would defeat the goal of providing means for communities/individual outside ICANN to participate. However in all these, we should note that MRT by design will be a last resort trigger and will only come in when the normal reconciliation processes of the SO/AC has proved abortive. For example, if the policy implementation wg of GNSO follow its processes to addressing its concern with the IANA operator and it still proved abortive, then the MRT comes in to develop a community acceptable solution which the ICANN board will be required to implement. I hope this clarifies what i meant. Thanks 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@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: Greg and other CWG members: I am thinking more and more that the MRT should be almost completely orthogonal to the GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC policy making complex. Our mental model of what it is and who should be on it needs to be completely detached from the policy making apparatus. We might think of drawing representatives from the regional network operating groups (NOGs), from the IAB/IETEF/ISOC, with a leavening of registry operators and civil society and prominent public officials to ensure a public interest perspective. Just to mention that i disagree with this view, members of the MRT should be drawn from the SO/ACs which is a known multistakeholder community but the activities of MRT is what needs to be all inclusive and not representative. The activities of the MRT needs to be completely non-representational as much as possible. The charter of MRT should make that clear distinction and on a lighter note, like i mentioned during the rfp3 call, maybe the name MRT is also putting too much weight on representation ;) Thanks Cheers! --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:22 PM To: Christopher Wilkinson Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT 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<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@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@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@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-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M...) MRT Composition Strawman Matrix (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa...). 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@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@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@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@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@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@acm.org<mailto:avri@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@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535<tel:%2B2348035233535> alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535<tel:%2B2348035233535> alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Milton, Thank you for your thoughtful and thought-provoking email. I actually agree with nearly everything you say. First, one of the reasons I posted the matrix of proposals, and in particular the 27 member proposal, was to show that if we try to give every group "what it wants," we don't give the community (or the process), "what it needs." So, there may be no rationale for the proposal as a whole -- it is just a stack of individual rationales bundled together -- with an end result that is hardly rational at all. I agree that we do not need to faithfully reproduce the GNSO (or any other structures) in the MRT. This is another way the MRT need not be and should not be a "mini-ICANN." While I will stand by my concerns about using the CSG as the minimum building block for ICANN groups in general, the MRT should not be viewed as just another ICANN cross-community group. While this may be an important principle to the constituencies of the CSG, it should not be applied in a mindless fashion. Speaking for myself (at the moment -- I've seen the IPC comment and I currently don't know what the BC and ISPs will say), the MRT is not the place where the CSG should "die in a ditch" to get represented at the Constituency level -- the way we usually want to get represented. I would encourage other groups to step back from their maximalist desires as well (acknowledging it sets no precedent for other groups). This needs to be balanced against a reasonable desire to represent sectors in some fashion. If the non-registry GNSO SGs had one representative (for sake of argument), I would still want to know that they are there to represent me, the IPC and the CSG, and not just their own SG. I agree that we were losing sight of the MRT's function, which is why we circulated the MRT "functional analysis" yesterday and spent most of our call earlier today discussing function, not structure. Many of the functions of the MRT are "boring." Things get more interesting when a deficiency or problem arises in the IANA's performance, and more interesting still when we get to issues around RFP. We don't need 27 people to review an annual security compliance audit report. One of the useful things that came out of this call was a discussion that major RFP-related decisions have to have a strong community component. There need to be public comments, webinars, public forums, etc., before major decisions are made. If we have a good "community" process, then granular representation during the RFP period should become less of a sore point. Your suggestion that the composition of the MRT "should be almost completely orthogonal to the GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC policy making complex" is intriguing and "disruptive" (in a good way). We should look at this afresh. I had left the door open for "other" groups to be suggested for representation, but there has not been much action on this point. We should think out of the box (and add the results to the "MRT Composition Matrix" in Google Docs). I have a couple of issues with the list of potential participants you posit. First, and foremost, you have left out the private sector. You have also left out governments as such (although you mention "prominent public officials"). Also, you have included groups in the technical community that rare not primarily concerned with "names." If the MRT were to sit in a role that spanned names, numbers and protocol parameters this would be fairly obvious. It's not so obvious when numbers and protocol parameters are being dealt with elsewhere. (The divided nature of our task and working methods makes it harder to explore such thoughts.) But I am certainly open to considering how these technical groups "map" to the concerns that "names" have in overseeing the IANA functions. This gives us something fresh to chew on today and over the weekend. Thank you. 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@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> * *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Greg and other CWG members:
Let me make an appeal to basic rationality in our consideration of the composition of the MRT.
I cannot understand the rationale for these 27-member MRT proposals. They seem to be based on the idea that in order to adequately enforce policy _ *implementation*_, the MRT must completely reproduce the representational structure of the policy _*making*_ organs. Is not the logical error here rather obvious?
Because we do have an appeals process, any entity dissatisfied with the implementation of policy has a channel for redress. But the MRT should be primarily concerned with the operation of the IANA functions, not with policy making.
Let’s not forget: Any policy that is being implemented by IANA is a product of THE ENTIRE GNSO, and is also supposed to have the assent of the board after considering advice from the ACs. In other words, before any policy can be passed on for IANA implementation, it must have something close to consensus support. Given GNSO voting rules, it must have support across both contracted and non-contracted houses. The issue at that point becomes ensuring proper implementation – not altering or rewriting the policy in ways that reflect the preferences of individual stakeholder groups.
In composing the MRT, we cannot lose sight of its basic function, and I think some of us are.
By including the entire GNSO policy making structure in the MRT, and large numbers of individual AC members, we create a very big risk that issues related to policy implementation by IANA become ways to re-fight policy making battles. In other words, smaller constituencies or AC units that may not have fully agreed with a policy that was _*passed and adopted*_ by the broader community might try to use the MRT to subvert or change policy implementation.
Greg you have replied to me that it is difficult to “compress” the 3 Commercial SG constituencies into a single person on the MRT. To that I reply that in 10 years of observing the GNSO I have never once seen the 3 CSG constituencies vote differently on a major policy proposal. Even if there are one or two instances of divergence on minor procedural issues I just cannot comprehend why the MRT, whose mission is to oversee accurate implementation and efficient performance of the IANA functions, needs to have a separate representative from BC or IPC, or NCUC and NPOC.
I am thinking more and more that the MRT should be almost completely orthogonal to the GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC policy making complex. Our mental model of what it is and who should be on it needs to be completely detached from the policy making apparatus. We might think of drawing representatives from the regional network operating groups (NOGs), from the IAB/IETEF/ISOC, with a leavening of registry operators and civil society and prominent public officials to ensure a public interest perspective.
--MM
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:22 PM *To:* Christopher Wilkinson *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
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@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Wilkinson < lists@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@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-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M... )
MRT Composition Strawman Matrix ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa... ).
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@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 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@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@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM *To: *Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
While I agree with most of what Greg and Milton say, I do have a few concerns that I will try to explain here. 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 the ICANN SOs, ACs, SGs and Cs, i.e., the MRT will become too big and cumbersome. Also, 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. 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. I think it would be best to rely on the multi-stakeholder processes in the SOs and ACs to get the broad input that will be needed for major decisions like RFPs while keeping the numbers of representatives on the MRT very minimal. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:48 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Milton, Thank you for your thoughtful and thought-provoking email. I actually agree with nearly everything you say. First, one of the reasons I posted the matrix of proposals, and in particular the 27 member proposal, was to show that if we try to give every group "what it wants," we don't give the community (or the process), "what it needs." So, there may be no rationale for the proposal as a whole -- it is just a stack of individual rationales bundled together -- with an end result that is hardly rational at all. I agree that we do not need to faithfully reproduce the GNSO (or any other structures) in the MRT. This is another way the MRT need not be and should not be a "mini-ICANN." While I will stand by my concerns about using the CSG as the minimum building block for ICANN groups in general, the MRT should not be viewed as just another ICANN cross-community group. While this may be an important principle to the constituencies of the CSG, it should not be applied in a mindless fashion. Speaking for myself (at the moment -- I've seen the IPC comment and I currently don't know what the BC and ISPs will say), the MRT is not the place where the CSG should "die in a ditch" to get represented at the Constituency level -- the way we usually want to get represented. I would encourage other groups to step back from their maximalist desires as well (acknowledging it sets no precedent for other groups). This needs to be balanced against a reasonable desire to represent sectors in some fashion. If the non-registry GNSO SGs had one representative (for sake of argument), I would still want to know that they are there to represent me, the IPC and the CSG, and not just their own SG. I agree that we were losing sight of the MRT's function, which is why we circulated the MRT "functional analysis" yesterday and spent most of our call earlier today discussing function, not structure. Many of the functions of the MRT are "boring." Things get more interesting when a deficiency or problem arises in the IANA's performance, and more interesting still when we get to issues around RFP. We don't need 27 people to review an annual security compliance audit report. One of the useful things that came out of this call was a discussion that major RFP-related decisions have to have a strong community component. There need to be public comments, webinars, public forums, etc., before major decisions are made. If we have a good "community" process, then granular representation during the RFP period should become less of a sore point. Your suggestion that the composition of the MRT "should be almost completely orthogonal to the GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC policy making complex" is intriguing and "disruptive" (in a good way). We should look at this afresh. I had left the door open for "other" groups to be suggested for representation, but there has not been much action on this point. We should think out of the box (and add the results to the "MRT Composition Matrix" in Google Docs). I have a couple of issues with the list of potential participants you posit. First, and foremost, you have left out the private sector. You have also left out governments as such (although you mention "prominent public officials"). Also, you have included groups in the technical community that rare not primarily concerned with "names." If the MRT were to sit in a role that spanned names, numbers and protocol parameters this would be fairly obvious. It's not so obvious when numbers and protocol parameters are being dealt with elsewhere. (The divided nature of our task and working methods makes it harder to explore such thoughts.) But I am certainly open to considering how these technical groups "map" to the concerns that "names" have in overseeing the IANA functions. This gives us something fresh to chew on today and over the weekend. Thank you. 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@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: Greg and other CWG members: Let me make an appeal to basic rationality in our consideration of the composition of the MRT. I cannot understand the rationale for these 27-member MRT proposals. They seem to be based on the idea that in order to adequately enforce policy _implementation_, the MRT must completely reproduce the representational structure of the policy _making_ organs. Is not the logical error here rather obvious? Because we do have an appeals process, any entity dissatisfied with the implementation of policy has a channel for redress. But the MRT should be primarily concerned with the operation of the IANA functions, not with policy making. Let’s not forget: Any policy that is being implemented by IANA is a product of THE ENTIRE GNSO, and is also supposed to have the assent of the board after considering advice from the ACs. In other words, before any policy can be passed on for IANA implementation, it must have something close to consensus support. Given GNSO voting rules, it must have support across both contracted and non-contracted houses. The issue at that point becomes ensuring proper implementation – not altering or rewriting the policy in ways that reflect the preferences of individual stakeholder groups. In composing the MRT, we cannot lose sight of its basic function, and I think some of us are. By including the entire GNSO policy making structure in the MRT, and large numbers of individual AC members, we create a very big risk that issues related to policy implementation by IANA become ways to re-fight policy making battles. In other words, smaller constituencies or AC units that may not have fully agreed with a policy that was _passed and adopted_ by the broader community might try to use the MRT to subvert or change policy implementation. Greg you have replied to me that it is difficult to “compress” the 3 Commercial SG constituencies into a single person on the MRT. To that I reply that in 10 years of observing the GNSO I have never once seen the 3 CSG constituencies vote differently on a major policy proposal. Even if there are one or two instances of divergence on minor procedural issues I just cannot comprehend why the MRT, whose mission is to oversee accurate implementation and efficient performance of the IANA functions, needs to have a separate representative from BC or IPC, or NCUC and NPOC. I am thinking more and more that the MRT should be almost completely orthogonal to the GNSO/ccNSO/GAC/ALAC policy making complex. Our mental model of what it is and who should be on it needs to be completely detached from the policy making apparatus. We might think of drawing representatives from the regional network operating groups (NOGs), from the IAB/IETEF/ISOC, with a leavening of registry operators and civil society and prominent public officials to ensure a public interest perspective. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:22 PM To: Christopher Wilkinson Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT 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<tel:212-885-9253> | Main 212-949-9022<tel:212-949-9022> Fax 212-949-9190<tel:212-949-9190> | Cell 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@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@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@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-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M...) MRT Composition Strawman Matrix (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa...). 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@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@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@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@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@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@acm.org<mailto:avri@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@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@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.
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@syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 6:17 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]<mailto:[mailto:cgomes@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.
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@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@syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 6:17 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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@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@lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@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@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-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M...) MRT Composition Strawman Matrix (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa...).
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@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 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@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@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 2:40 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@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@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@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@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@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@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@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-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M...) MRT Composition Strawman Matrix (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa...). 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@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@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@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@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@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:05 AM To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@acm.org<mailto:avri@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@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Christopher, There are a number of errors in your message below, for the sake of the others who might not know, let me list them. * First, you assert that the ICG, of which I am a member, is expected to "seek and propose a collective solution." This is incorrect. No such expectations are enumerated in our charter. We do not propose, we assemble and integrate the proposals given to us by the three operational communities in a bottom up manner. Our charter was designed to give each of them the autonomy to propose whatever they want, within the NTIA criteria. * Second, you hint that ICG should unilaterally revise or modify the proposals they receive to conform to the expectations you have invented. But if you read our charter you will see that if and when we identify unworkable elements or violations of the NTIA criteria in the proposals, we will merely return it to the relevant operational community for them to revise. You can review the ICG charter here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf We also have a FAQ: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icg-faqs-2014-10-10-en * Third, with respect to 'economy of oversight' you are wrong again; there are no such economies to be had. The IETF already has its own, separate SLA for the protocol-related functions, the numbers people have a separate set of processes, and the NTIA and ccNSO and gTLDs have overseen the DNS part. In other words, we already have a 3 distinct pairwise monitoring relationships between IANA and the three operational communities. The DNS community does not spend time monitoring IANA's publication of IETF protocols, and the IETF/IAB do not spend time monitoring the accuracy of DNS root zone modifications. There are a few IANA functions that touch on more than one operational community, and there is some need for coordination across names, numbers and protocols in some very limited instances, but they are technical coordination functions not 'oversight'. * Fourth, with respect to separability, you conveniently overlook the fact that both the IETF and the NRO/ASO people either already have, or are creating, their own form of separability. * Fifth, and most distressing, when you mention vertical integration and issues of "fair competition" you are revealing utter confusion between ICANN-related policy development and IANA-related implementation issues. Whether a registrar and registry can be vertically integrated is an economic policy matter (one that was resolved several years ago, by the way) and does not in the slightest bit affect how IANA works or who the contractor should be. There is no intersection between these things. A root zone modification for a vertically integrated registry works in exactly the same way as a root zone modification for a non-integrated operator. * Sixth, it was ICANN's board that passed the vertical integration policy despite the absence of a consensus policy from the relevant GNSO working group. I find it ironic that you are so enraged about the vertical integration policy and yet are also such an enthusiastic proponent of ICANN controlling IANA. Perhaps you need to revise some of your assumptions and conclusions now that you know the facts. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson 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
Dear Milton: You really have such a gift for seeing the world as you would wish it to be. I shall reflect on some of your comments during the coming days and meanwhile wish you and our colleagues All the best and the Season's Greetings CW On 22 Dec 2014, at 04:46, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Christopher, There are a number of errors in your message below, for the sake of the others who might not know, let me list them.
· First, you assert that the ICG, of which I am a member, is expected to “seek and propose a collective solution.” This is incorrect. No such expectations are enumerated in our charter. We do not propose, we assemble and integrate the proposals given to us by the three operational communities in a bottom up manner. Our charter was designed to give each of them the autonomy to propose whatever they want, within the NTIA criteria.
· Second, you hint that ICG should unilaterally revise or modify the proposals they receive to conform to the expectations you have invented. But if you read our charter you will see that if and when we identify unworkable elements or violations of the NTIA criteria in the proposals, we will merely return it to the relevant operational community for them to revise.
You can review the ICG charter here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf We also have a FAQ:https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icg-faqs-2014-10-10-en
· Third, with respect to ‘economy of oversight’ you are wrong again; there are no such economies to be had. The IETF already has its own, separate SLA for the protocol-related functions, the numbers people have a separate set of processes, and the NTIA and ccNSO and gTLDs have overseen the DNS part. In other words, we already have a 3 distinct pairwise monitoring relationships between IANA and the three operational communities. The DNS community does not spend time monitoring IANA’s publication of IETF protocols, and the IETF/IAB do not spend time monitoring the accuracy of DNS root zone modifications. There are a few IANA functions that touch on more than one operational community, and there is some need for coordination across names, numbers and protocols in some very limited instances, but they are technical coordination functions not ‘oversight’.
· Fourth, with respect to separability, you conveniently overlook the fact that both the IETF and the NRO/ASO people either already have, or are creating, their own form of separability.
· Fifth, and most distressing, when you mention vertical integration and issues of “fair competition” you are revealing utter confusion between ICANN-related policy development and IANA-related implementation issues. Whether a registrar and registry can be vertically integrated is an economic policy matter (one that was resolved several years ago, by the way) and does not in the slightest bit affect how IANA works or who the contractor should be. There is no intersection between these things. A root zone modification for a vertically integrated registry works in exactly the same way as a root zone modification for a non-integrated operator.
· Sixth, it was ICANN’s board that passed the vertical integration policy despite the absence of a consensus policy from the relevant GNSO working group. I find it ironic that you are so enraged about the vertical integration policy and yet are also such an enthusiastic proponent of ICANN controlling IANA. Perhaps you need to revise some of your assumptions and conclusions now that you know the facts.
Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson
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
Alan
-----Original Message-----
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.
I'd ask you to read those sections of the IANA contract which require the contractor to cooperate with any successor and to ensure a smooth transition, namely C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA. In effect, we have been living with your "potentially disruptive" situation for more than a decade. I would like to hear more about how individual internet users are helped by a situation in which there is no recourse if the current IANA contractor either becomes incompetent or uses its control of the IaNA functions to circumvent bottom up policy making.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
I would like to hear more about how individual internet users are helped by a situation in which there is no recourse if the current IANA contractor either becomes incompetent or uses its control of the IaNA functions to circumvent bottom up policy making.
This is a very valid point which i believe we all share however i can say that possibility can be said by any organisation (including the RIRs) however what is important and gives relief is the internal mechanism that allows for recovery and i would think that is what we should fixing. We don't keep a cutlass in preparation for a possible headache, we keep first aid drugs which we ingest into the same body. We should task ICANN to provide those first aids and not scaring it with a cutlas which will only worsen the headache Regards
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
We don't keep a cutlass in preparation for a possible headache, we keep first aid drugs which we ingest into the same body. We should task ICANN to provide those first aids and not scaring it with a cutlas which will only worsen the headache
Seun, this is the kind of argument that has made ALAC interventions in this process so frustrating. We understand that you want everything to remain inside ICANN. What we don’t understand is why. Specifically, how that would be good for individual internet uses, or indeed any internet users? Providing a crude metaphor about cutting off body parts does not, as far as I can tell, tell us anything about how a complete absence of contractual separability would advance the interests of internet users, especially when this so-called cutlass has been available since 1999. Your suggestion that ICANN would provide the “first aid” for problems we think it might actually cause reveals a certain obliviousness to accountability issues that undermines the credibility of your argument. You repeatedly reference the RIRs in other messages, but fail to note that the RIRs also plan to have a contractual, separable relationship to ICANN’s IANA. You also fail to note that IETF does, too. In short, the bulk of the Internet community sees a contractual relationship – which is how organizations relate to each other, they are not body parts – as the norm. You are the outlier. You have repeatedly failed to justify the ALAC approach. --MM
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
We don't keep a cutlass in preparation for a possible headache,
we keep first aid drugs which we ingest into the same body.
We should task ICANN to provide those first aids and not scaring it
with a cutlas which will only worsen the headache
Seun, this is the kind of argument that has made ALAC interventions in this process so frustrating. We understand that you want everything to remain inside ICANN. What we don’t understand is why. Specifically, how that would be good for individual internet uses, or indeed any internet users?
Well what i believe is that a true and efficient accountability can only be achieved from within by the community. My little RIR experience has thought me that. I see this transition as an opportunity for that and i don't think its appropriate to categorise a group's proposal in the manner you have just done because me and you know that there are more frustration items that will happen by the implementation of current cwg proposal
Providing a crude metaphor about cutting off body parts does not, as far as I can tell, tell us anything about how a complete absence of contractual separability would advance the interests of internet users, especially when this so-called cutlass has been available since 1999.
This is indeed why the "metaphor" would be applicable to this situation. I think it was wise to have started in 1999 by contract because the organisation was so young and needs some external protection (that contract for me was not just to make ICANN accountable but also to protect it from collapse). However if we then say that there is now need to move to the next level, it should mean that we now believe the organisation can be sustainable on its own.
Your suggestion that ICANN would provide the “first aid” for problems we think it might actually cause reveals a certain obliviousness to accountability issues that undermines the credibility of your argument.
By ICANN providing "first aid" i refer to the community of ICANN, and ICANN as an organisation knowing those mechanisms exists. The sense of that gives the community and the organisation a sense of relief and sense of caution
You repeatedly reference the RIRs in other messages, but fail to note that the RIRs also plan to have a contractual, separable relationship to ICANN’s IANA. You also fail to note that IETF does, too.
I believe i understand the other communities to some extent: - The RIR and IETF solution is not a contract "per see", its largely an SLA which does not have any definite period of renewal (unless there is need to re-write the text) - The RIR and IETF are (with ccTLDs included) separate organisations who is getting a service from IANA operator and the only way such service can be formalised is by an agreement - The organisation for the gTLD however is ICANN which is servicing itself (just like a typical ccTLD manages its nations country code), so i see a fundamental difference between the gTLD and the other communities which are largely external to ICANN.
In short, the bulk of the Internet community sees a contractual relationship – which is how organizations relate to each other, they are not body parts – as the norm. You are the outlier.
Good you refer to organisations relating to each other because that is indeed what is happening between ICANN and other communities (as i explained above). So maybe if we make those distinctions then we would both appreciate what contractual relationship we are all seeing. I for one would like to see a great sense of accountability within ICANN that will require some principles that will be adhered to by management and community (that on its own can be seen as an agreement) Thanks Regards
--MM
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
At 17/12/2014 12:21 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Alan
-----Original Message-----
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.
I'd ask you to read those sections of the IANA contract which require the contractor to cooperate with any successor and to ensure a smooth transition, namely C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA.
In effect, we have been living with your "potentially disruptive" situation for more than a decade.
Indeed we have. And perhaps that is a small part of why there has been no change.
I would like to hear more about how individual internet users are helped by a situation in which there is no recourse if the current IANA contractor either becomes incompetent or uses its control of the IaNA functions to circumvent bottom up policy making.
They would not be. And I would never advocate such a situation. We just differ on how to resolve it. Alan
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> [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu]<mailto:[mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu]> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>; gurcharya@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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 Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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?
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> [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> [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu]<mailto:[mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu]> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>; gurcharya@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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 Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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?
Eric, If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that the MRT must be globally inclusive and geographically representative even if what it is replacing is currently done by one person at NTIA. Is that correct? If so, then I think we need to figure out how to do that without creating a bloated bureaucratic structure that will be expensive and slower than what we have now? Chuck From: Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:49 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; mueller@syr.edu; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT 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]<mailto:[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> [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> [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu]<mailto:[mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu]> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Donna.Austin@ariservices.com<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>; gurcharya@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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 Logo]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<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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?
Hi, I think things are getting confounded. I can't see the MRT doing the daily one person job that is done by NTIA. I think of that as a Contract Co, adminstrative task. The MRT is an oversight body, not the adminstrator I see the MRT being responsible for review and exception based oversight of the entire IANA function, with at least relation to names, being done properly on a myriad of axis from operational to policy implementation going through stability and security of the DNS and the deployment of whatever technical changes may be required as time goes on, and &c. this is in additon to dealing with any issue escalated by the CSC and issues that may be handed to it by appeals decisions. And of course deciding on contract allocation. It is for these reason that I believe it needs broad and diverse representation. I beleive finding the balance between that and lean is our challenge. avri On 17-Dec-14 08:47, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Eric,
If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that the MRT must be globally inclusive and geographically representative even if what it is replacing is currently done by one person at NTIA. Is that correct? If so, then I think we need to figure out how to do that without creating a bloated bureaucratic structure that will be expensive and slower than what we have now?
Chuck
*From:*Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:49 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; mueller@syr.edu; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Cc:* Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
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] <mailto:[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> [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> [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu] <mailto:[mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu]> *Sent:* Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM *To:* Milton L Mueller; Donna.Austin@ariservices.com <mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>; gurcharya@gmail.com <mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Cc:* Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto: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>[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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 Logo*D**ONNA 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 <mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com>_ _*W** *www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/>
/Follow us on //Twitter/ <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
/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>[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 <mailto: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 (2/3 or 4/5) 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>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Guru Acharya *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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
Avri: I'm almost completely aligned with you. I would only say that I think that the "daily one person job done by NTIA" will become a CSC task (not a Contract Co. task). Other than that, +1. 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@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> * *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I think things are getting confounded.
I can't see the MRT doing the daily one person job that is done by NTIA. I think of that as a Contract Co, adminstrative task. The MRT is an oversight body, not the adminstrator
I see the MRT being responsible for review and exception based oversight of the entire IANA function, with at least relation to names, being done properly on a myriad of axis from operational to policy implementation going through stability and security of the DNS and the deployment of whatever technical changes may be required as time goes on, and &c. this is in additon to dealing with any issue escalated by the CSC and issues that may be handed to it by appeals decisions. And of course deciding on contract allocation.
It is for these reason that I believe it needs broad and diverse representation. I beleive finding the balance between that and lean is our challenge.
avri
On 17-Dec-14 08:47, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Eric,
If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that the MRT must be globally inclusive and geographically representative even if what it is replacing is currently done by one person at NTIA. Is that correct? If so, then I think we need to figure out how to do that without creating a bloated bureaucratic structure that will be expensive and slower than what we have now?
Chuck
*From:* Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu [ mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu <Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu>] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:49 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; mueller@syr.edu; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Cc:* Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
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 <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 <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 <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
[image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA 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* <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
*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 <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 <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 listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I think things are getting confounded.
I can't see the MRT doing the daily one person job that is done by NTIA. I think of that as a Contract Co, adminstrative task. The MRT is an oversight body, not the adminstrator
I thought contract co is supposed to be shelf entity with no daily activity and would only suffice when its time to formerly award contract
I see the MRT being responsible for review and exception based oversight of the entire IANA function, with at least relation to names, being done properly on a myriad of axis from operational to policy implementation going through stability and security of the DNS and the deployment of whatever technical changes may be required as time goes on, and &c. this is in additon to dealing with any issue escalated by the CSC and issues that may be handed to it by appeals decisions. And of course deciding on contract allocation.
Hmm...when you say entire IANA function i will assume you are only referring to the names part. On that note; i will like to be sure to get your point about MRT's role; are you implying that going forward, the function operator will run its requests through MRT who then put a seal OR the operator will be required to always put the MRT in CC of its actions and if MRT finds something non-compliance in nature then MRT makes decision whether to move the IANA function or not? Its important to clarify the specific roles of the MRT so that we can simulate it in practice, perhaps that will help further improve understanding/consensus on the current proposal Regards
It is for these reason that I believe it needs broad and diverse representation. I beleive finding the balance between that and lean is our challenge.
avri
On 17-Dec-14 08:47, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Eric,
If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that the MRT must be globally inclusive and geographically representative even if what it is replacing is currently done by one person at NTIA. Is that correct? If so, then I think we need to figure out how to do that without creating a bloated bureaucratic structure that will be expensive and slower than what we have now?
Chuck
*From:* Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu [ mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu <Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu>] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:49 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; mueller@syr.edu; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Cc:* Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT
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 <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 <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 <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
[image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA 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* <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
*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 <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 <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 listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
The fact that there are active discussions to possibly create such a body will no doubt likely lead to public comments. Let’s evaluate them when they come in.. Robert
On Dec 15, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
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> [mailto: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 <mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu>'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Cc: 'Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto: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> [mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu] <mailto:[mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu]> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:14 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Donna.Austin@ariservices.com <mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>; gurcharya@gmail.com <mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto: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> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:16 PM To: Milton L Mueller; Guru Acharya; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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
<image001.png>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 <mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/>
Follow us on Twitter <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
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> [mailto: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 <mailto: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> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
Milton: Then maybe a better solution is to have one representative from each organization. That will give it a better balance and no issues regarding which organization gets how many seats. -ed On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
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 <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 <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
[image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA 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* <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
*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 <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 <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
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Eduardo There is merit to this approach. We risk the purpose of the MRT by being bogged down in representational issues. The MRT's limited mandate does not warrant huge numbers of persons for the issues it has to address. If there is a need for greater diversity then different organizational representatives could hold "their" seat depending on the issue at hand. Our recent call on the MRT was very useful but perhaps we need to clearly map out what the MRT is supposed to do and how and who will do it. We could select two or three issues that the MRT has responsibility for and understand how they would be addressed. For example, how would the MRT address an issue escalated from the CSC; or, how would the MRT decide that subsequent to a performance review the contract needed to be rebid, etc. Once we have done that mapping it might become clearer who needs to sit on the MRT. We talk about stress testing the model as a whole but we also need to better understand how its component parts would work in practice. Matthew On 12/16/2014 6:30 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
Milton:
Then maybe a better solution is to have one representative from each organization. That will give it a better balance and no issues regarding which organization gets how many seats.
-ed
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu <mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote:
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> [mailto: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 <mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>; gurcharya@gmail.com <mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Cc:* Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto: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>[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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 Logo*D**ONNA AUSTIN* Policy and Industry Affairs Manager**
*ARI REGISTRY SERVICES* Melbourne*|*Los Angeles *P*+1 310 890 9655 <tel:%2B1%20310%20890%209655> *P*+61 3 9866 3710 <tel:%2B61%203%209866%203710> *E***donna.austin@ariservices.com <mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com>_ _*W***www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/>
/Follow us on //Twitter/ <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
/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>[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 <mailto: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 (2/3 or 4/5) 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>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Guru Acharya *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987
This is a good suggestion J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary. Follow Neustar: [http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture.png] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture%20(1)(1).png] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [http://neunet.neustar.biz/sites/default/files/295/New%20Picture%20(2).png] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustarinc> ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:01 AM To: Eduardo Diaz; Milton L Mueller Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Composition of MRT Eduardo There is merit to this approach. We risk the purpose of the MRT by being bogged down in representational issues. The MRT's limited mandate does not warrant huge numbers of persons for the issues it has to address. If there is a need for greater diversity then different organizational representatives could hold "their" seat depending on the issue at hand. Our recent call on the MRT was very useful but perhaps we need to clearly map out what the MRT is supposed to do and how and who will do it. We could select two or three issues that the MRT has responsibility for and understand how they would be addressed. For example, how would the MRT address an issue escalated from the CSC; or, how would the MRT decide that subsequent to a performance review the contract needed to be rebid, etc. Once we have done that mapping it might become clearer who needs to sit on the MRT. We talk about stress testing the model as a whole but we also need to better understand how its component parts would work in practice. Matthew On 12/16/2014 6:30 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: Milton: Then maybe a better solution is to have one representative from each organization. That will give it a better balance and no issues regarding which organization gets how many seats. -ed On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: 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> [mailto: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<mailto:Donna.Austin@ariservices.com>; gurcharya@gmail.com<mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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 Logo]DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655<tel:%2B1%20310%20890%209655> P +61 3 9866 3710<tel:%2B61%203%209866%203710> E donna.austin@ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ariservices.com_&d=A...> Follow us on Twitter<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ARIservices...> 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> [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<mailto: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> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:07 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMCAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=XLwq_SYhYkzMwt9UYq2Prz_8n69S2WK8_9-k5wrm5Y0&s=bbXcYafENTlnzudEsIG4WZQiMJ8J23X0TU9ATQnyIJM&e=> -- NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AwMCAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=XLwq_SYhYkzMwt9UYq2Prz_8n69S2WK8_9-k5wrm5Y0&s=bbXcYafENTlnzudEsIG4WZQiMJ8J23X0TU9ATQnyIJM&e=> -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> + 44 771 247 2987
participants (25)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Allan MacGillivray -
Avri Doria -
Burr, Becky -
Carlton Samuels -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Donna Austin -
Eduardo Diaz -
Gomes, Chuck -
Grace Abuhamad -
Greg Shatan -
Guru Acharya -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
James Gannon -
Jordan Carter -
Lars-Erik.Forsberg＠ec.europa.eu -
Lindeberg, Elise -
Lise Fuhr -
Martin Boyle -
Matthew Shears -
Milton L Mueller -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Robert Guerra -
Seun Ojedeji -
WUKnoben