Meeting #7 CWG RFP3 (29 December)

---

Proposed Agenda: 

1. Welcome & Roll Call

2. Discussion of MRT Functional Analysis

3. Discussion of MRT Structural Analysis

Notes:

RFP 3 Call on 29 December (14:00 - 16:00 UTC)

Notes 29/12: 

Composition of MRT: ICANN groups based or not?

- too many groups?

- how to represent the global multi-stakeholder community?

- proportional representation to consider?

- this organization is not policy-making, but it is policy-enforcing

- Is the MRT limited to names with representation from other groups related (such as IETF, NRO) or is it a broader MRT for all IANA functions stewardship?

- think about minimal structure rather than maximal structure (focus on what the job is)

- if there is a problem with ICANN, fix ICANN

- what is the interest of different groups? for IPC, it's being a part of the conversation, for NCSG, it's representing non-commercial interests in the oversight

    

Should the CSC be solely composed of customers? Or should there be some representation of the stakeholder groups seen in the MRT? Should there be other operational communities represented (such as IETF, NRO)?

- there should be 2 or 3 experts on the CSC

- RSSAC: on CSC as experts or customers? Steve Crocker: As a minor point, note that root server operators are also customers of IANA in the sense that they too have entries in the root zone.  That is, they have their own primary data that is published in the root zone.

- focus on function of CSC (technical function)

- CSC composition is linked to MRT. GAC may not need a seat on CSC if MRT is truly multi-stakeholder

- What happens if ICANN changes? Does representation change?

 

Wrap up

- Small MRT is better

- Even smaller CSC is better (strongly oriented to direct customers)

 

Next call  Friday, January 02, 2015  14:00 UTC - 16:00 UTC

Meeting adjourned @ 15: 54 UTC

 

Transcript

Transcript RFP 3 29 DEC.doc

Transcript RFP 3 29 DEC.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p6eghtl0q4g/

The audio recording is available here:  https://icann.box.com/shared/static/mh3e42clq6v3kp4lsjtd.mp3

Documents Presented

MRT Structural Analysis 121414 Draft.pdf

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa9PHvmJ0/edit?usp=sharing

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer:Good Day Everyone!  Welcome to the RFP3 Conference Call #7 at 14:00 UTC .

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):Hi, all Japan is in the year end and new year holidays, though. :-)

  Grace Abuhamad:Happy New Year @Yasuichi. Quite committed to join calls on New Year's Eve

  Milton Mueller:Is it possible to get audio via computer? That option was not listed when I logged in

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):Happy New Year @Grace.

  Milton Mueller:Hello, Grace, Brenda

  Brenda Brewer:Hi Milton. 

  Milton Mueller:Brenda, possible to get audio by computer or do I need to call in?

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:I was able to do audio via computer, Milton

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):same here.

  Milton Mueller:OK, it is available now. It wasn't before

  Milton Mueller:but the mic is not working

  Robert Guerra:Goog day all

  Robert Guerra:Good day all i mean..

  Staffan Jonson:Hello all

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hello

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:no sound?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:aha

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:sound

  Fatima Cambronero:hello everyone

  Seun Ojedeji:Hello everyone...compliment of the season :)

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:Milton, you're not muted

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:hi. all

  Steve Crocker:Hello, everyone

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Sorry I'm so late

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Hi :)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Size of an MRT based on  'Non  "ICANN Construct " Group'  may very well  reult in a large niumber  (or a large as the one being made in draft; as well of course...    So  "size"   as well as  "seating" needs to be discussed  perhaps seperatly =>  as just mentioned by Greg

  Staffan Jonson:Comments here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1POnrfwYbviniyUC_vr4pGRZ-RiKkAMJ50ovXWv7M2yk/edit#

  Staffan Jonson:CSC comments here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kEMsYy6ABffka7G1iONO7VzTRlD4UwB0n05UdV8pAjA/edit

  Milton Mueller:On linkage between CSC and MRT: one of the concerns was that the MRT was a standing entity that would find something to do. Maybe if MRT isnot standing but its actions can be triggered by CSC we can address that problem

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Excellent point @Alan

  Fatima Cambronero:+1 @Alan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:that does need to be "watched"

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@alan:  It is very multi-stakeholder for gtlds...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Sorry @ Martin  I do not follow your comment  I fear...  can you expand  re what your comment means  in response to @Alans point  re MSMism requirement as stated by NTIA for a  stewrdship transition "to" entity...

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Milton, not standing might be a good idea - but I think MRT must have a mandate to also bring things o forward on their own initiativ if its needed

  Guru Acharya:MRT Composition Strawman Matrix (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l14hNILare9USehPaYBGaE5yy8tbjSwrRbAa9PHvmJ0/edit?usp=sharing).

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:You are breaking up the representation on the basis of 4 GNSO to 1 ccNSO as the starting point.

  Staffan Jonson:9 members is a good start. However, let's start with identifying functions before fixing the number...

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Milton:  yes!

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Steffan - agree

  Staffan Jonson:what is the absolute minimum?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:ccTLDs have registrars and commercial and no-commercial stakeholders, too

  Steve Crocker:Let me suggest that in addition to — or perhaps instead of — the ongoing discussion of the structure and composition of the Contract Co, CSC, MRT etc., this group might consider a much narrow proposal.  From our perspective, some sort of review committee that looks at the performance of the IANA function and reports to both the IANA customers and to the public seems appropriate.  We have something similar in place for the root signing process.  For root signing, we have representatives from all over the world participate in the key ceremony and hence have direct knowledge that the process is both well run and faithful to its mission.As we said in our submission, ICANN was purpose-built to be the home of the IANA function.  It was also designed to be inclusive.  Creation of new structures that attempt to be even more inclusive and have powers outside of ICANN seem to us to be off the mark.  If there are additional safeguards needed within ICANN, that’s a reasonable discussion to have, and, in fact, is ex

  Steve Crocker:Let me suggest that in addition to — or perhaps instead of — the ongoing discussion of the structure and composition of the Contract Co, CSC, MRT etc., this group might consider a much narrow proposal.  From our perspective, some sort of review committee that looks at the performance of the IANA function and reports to both the IANA customers and to the public seems appropriate.  We have something similar in place for the root signing process.  For root signing, we have representatives from all over the world participate in the key ceremony and hence have direct knowledge that the process is both well run and faithful to its mission.

  Steve Crocker:As we said in our submission, ICANN was purpose-built to be the home of the IANA function.  It was also designed to be inclusive.  Creation of new structures that attempt to be even more inclusive and have powers outside of ICANN seem to us to be off the mark.  If there are additional safeguards needed within ICANN, that’s a reasonable discussion to have, and, in fact, is exactly the charter of the Accountability Working Group.

  Brenden Kuerbis:This composition could be OK, if MRT was constrained in what it could do. E.g., only convene process for contracting.

  Grace Abuhamad:I've uploaded the document for all. You have scroll control.

  Donna Austin, RySG:Martin has raised previously how it is possible to have multi-stakeholder input to the MRT. This would sit well with a smaller MRT, of 9 or so members.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:IT is important to have a complete set of stakeholder representation on the MRT. This is stewardship by the Internernational Multistakeholder Community - not stewardship of the IANA Names functions by the Registries. Self regulation has been shown to fail.

  Staffan Jonson:Milton hear hear

  Steve Crocker:The IANA function serves the IETF and numbers communities as well as the names community.  If you're going to propose any form of oversight or review committee, the IETF/IAB and the ASO had better be first class members.

  Gary Campbell:Does that rule out self-regulation?

  Steve Crocker:Also note the root server operators are the direct recipients of changes to the root zone and publish the root zone to the entire Internet community.

  Avri Doria:Steve i think that given the division in the task, this oversight is just for names..

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Milton:  I would not support a group without government reps

  Seun Ojedeji:@Avri isn't major part of root zones about names?

  Avri Doria:Steve, the IETF  already has a contract and the NRO_Crisp is proposing a contract with the RIRs.  This is the names oversight.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Nor without someone from ALAC

  Avri Doria:Seun, of the root zone yes. of IANA activity no.

  Steve Crocker:Avri, ok, but my earlier comment of two paragraphs still holds

  Milton Mueller:@MartinBoyle: any reason for this other than political bargains?

  Brenden Kuerbis:Steve, can you remind me, are TCRs approved by ICANN?

  Avri Doria:i think more effort is spent on IETf, but am not sure.  Certainly the IANA review of all RFC vbound drafts is labor intensive.  Do we have a breakdonw of Full time equivalent staff on the various IANA activitites?

  Steve Crocker:As a separate matter, there are some IANA-specific policy issues that are quite important but quite distinct from the sort of policies people on this call have in mind.  Two very important examples, which have been mentioned before...

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I think we need to show that the committee is bringing in an understanding of where external concerns lie

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:(sorry:  that was @Milton)

  Suzanne Woolf:I have some concern as a root server operator that's it's not clear to me where a root server operator could raise questions or concerns. The root zone is not a static thing. Under this structure, who would decide and by what process to do something like add DNSSEC or IPv6 records to the root?

  Milton Mueller:Martin, and you think those external concerns are not adequately reflected in the policy making process?

  Suzanne Woolf:I believe this is the kind of concern Milton is trying to consider, and thanks for that.

  Milton Mueller:Suzanne: I thought we had all agreed that RSSAC would be fully represented on the MRT and CSC

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Yes:  I'd actually look at fairness of the implementation

  Staffan Jonson:A joint proposal for of IETF/IAB, ASO and Naming community level combined is more logical

  Steve Crocker:There was a very long delay -- multiple years -- before root server operators were permitted to publish the IPv6 addresses of their servers.  The delay was due to lack of any way for the IANA group to determine whether adding IPv6 addresses to the root zone was ok, and there was any machinery in place to discuss and decide that.

  Steve Crocker:Similarly, the decision to sign the root zone was stalled for a very long time for similar reasons.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@milton:  there's a lot of GNSO, but no government input

  Milton Mueller:MArtin, sounds to me like you want IANA implementation to be a second policy making process

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Milton:  no, absolutely not

  Milton Mueller:Martin, this is the names root we are taking about

  Milton Mueller:you have GNSO and ccNSO - and many governments are ccTLD opertors or licensors

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:It is looking at how implementation is carried out

  Seun Ojedeji:@Avri the puzzle will then be seperation those names related IANA functions and having the MRT exhibit oversight on them ;)

  Seun Ojedeji:@Avri the puzzle will then be seperating those names related IANA functions and having the MRT exhibit oversight on them ;)

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:implementation monitoring needs to be undertaken by a full multistakeholder model. To think otherwise is naive.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:There are a few governments that run their cctld. 

  Staffan Jonson:Yes, I do also understand differentiating MRT in the three silos...

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:But not many

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Olivier  - I agree, - its going to be important for the GAC also

  Milton Mueller:Olivier, RZ changes are a relatively small part of polcy implementation. Contracts, enforcement, etc. are far more appropriate for the policy community to monitor

  Suzanne Woolf:@Milton: having operations constituencies represented isn't the same as having it within scope for the group to consider such things, or the expertise, or the ability to make a decision (or even determine the proper inputs to one) . Do you think those are adequately covered under this model>

  Seun Ojedeji:@Greg good point on having a general oversight....just that at the moment the RIR and IETF already are pleased with their arrangements

  Suzanne Woolf:I'm not arguing it isn't covered; I'm asking the question.

  Milton Mueller:Suzanne: Not sure. Worth developing further

  Milton Mueller:I had assumed it was in scope

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:control of the RZ is the most highly politically charged issue on the Internet - exacerbated by Snowden revelations

  Fatima Cambronero:governments should not be represented only through the ccTLDs

  Suzanne Woolf:OK, happy to take it to the mailing list, as I'm also on the hook to ponder for RFP4.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Personally  I agree with the points  made by @Steve C here

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: but that is a *personal* view

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@steve +1. 

  Suzanne Woolf:Ah! everything I've said is a personal view; RSSAC is discussing but doesn't have a consensus, yet.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Important for me that we see the MRT as a group that enables wider outreach.  I would not want to see the MRT making any decision off its own bat:  it should always go out for wider discussion

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:+1 @Martin

  Milton Mueller:Yes, Martin, that is precisely why it doesnt need multple members from sectoral groups. The MRT can and will do public comment calls, etc

  Staffan Jonson:My point when doing a dichotomy between internet infrastructure and content is a bit rethoric. I know per se de difference. However, I believe that it is important to streamline the coming organization in order to make it (more) operational. I fear that too many actors would cripple ability to act. It is, as also the risk of in the future build in slippery slope towards more content regulation, towards politization (in lack of a better word representing external interests not relevant for the scope of the RFP per se) of the infrastructure. By a minimalistic approach, in combination with the decentralization and automation of we might avoid such politization.

  Milton Mueller:Agree, Staffan

  Brenden Kuerbis:On root signing trusted community representatives - http://www.root-dnssec.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/ICANN-TCR-Proposal-20100408.pdf

  Seun Ojedeji:actually i think i somewhat agree with Steve about having a non-representational MRT (kind-of echoed it in the past but did not fly on the list). However Steve's suggestion may receive more +1s if we kind-of further simplify the role of MRT (especially what its able to make decision about)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:++ to @Steve C here

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:+1 @ Steve C

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:+1 @Steve

  Avri Doria:Personally I am still troubled by the fact that the MRT scope has grown beyond just the contract making function.  I think that making it a standing committee is a problem.

  Seun Ojedeji:absolute +1 ro @Steve

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Completely

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Agree @Steve

  Brenden Kuerbis:Agree that finding qualified individuals for MRT desirable, more important is defining selection criteria and mechanism for removing/rotating off individuals from MRT.

  Brenda Brewer:Mary Uduma has joined the phone line

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:The ALAC has asked *repeatedly* why/how brand new structures would be more accountable than an improved ICANN. No reply. I guess that this is the question which nobody can reply to.

  Milton Mueller:Olivier, the answer to this question is provided by the composition and method of MRT and CSC selection, and by the criteria we deifned to move the contract

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:and yet  that seems to be the core point that @ Steve C is making here as well re MRT "consteruction"

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:what method, Milton? There is no method as yet.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):It is interesting to say that the MRT will use public comments and be able to distill them down to balanced decisions. In this group we now have a PC with a VERY divided set of inputs, and instead of trying to start tackling how we will address that, we are ignoring it by continuing on the path previously taken by this group prior to the PC.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Only IF  you agree we need to build  them at ALL @Milton

  Seun Ojedeji:or better put, there is no practical/realistic method at the moment (maybe on paper they look good)

  Milton Mueller:ICANN has a huge set of responsibilities and greater powers. Making it accountable across all those is much harder than a narrow focus on an IANA contract

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:there is no agreed composition so far of the MRT nor the CSC nor its selection. Saying "trust me, it will be more accountable" just doesn't work. "Trust me, it will be alright"

  Milton Mueller:Yes, CLO, we understand perfectly well why Crocker is advocating that ICANN Retain control of IANA permanently

  Seun Ojedeji:okay I have to leave now...thanks for the discussion....happy new year in advance

  Staffan Jonson:Earlier meetings talked about that coming organization/MRT will ensure that MS policy is followed (or not). At least to me, this indicates that the function of MRT might become recuced to a Yes-no function. If policy isn’t upheld, MS community (not necessary invented or defined under the scope of RFP3) would need to react to non-compliance of policy. Wether ICANN or any other organization is setting policy would be outside of this scope.

  Milton Mueller:Olivier, do not misrepresent people's positions. We are discussing the MRT composition, no one is saying "trust me" or perhaps you can reference such an assertion?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:but it can have a focus  within ICANN  (even an at arms length entity  to do so  @Milton  an Oversite  "cpnstruct" that does  pourely ficus on IANA Matters

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:ficus  =  Focus   ;-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:sorry about the typos

  Milton Mueller:I like Ficus better ;-) nice tree

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr::-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:and can be bonsied  rather effectivly as well @Milton ;-)

  Milton Mueller:"Spilling the board" or new membership structures proposed in CCWG are MUCH riskier than what we are talking about here, folks

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:@Milton:  I have been repeatedly told that new structures will be more accountable than ICANN. How? Show me the proof. In response, I have been told, well, it will be thanks to the composition of the MRT and the independence of a Contract Co. that will be super simple and with a CSC that's efficient.... al promises but no proof yet that the concept works at all. This is nothing but a concept that has not proven itself & is based on promises that it will work. Nothing less.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Greg:  not "fairly limited mandate":  clearly and "very limited mandate"

  Milton Mueller:Olivier, we are both talking abot new structures. You are talking about radical new accuntability structures that are even less well defined than the CWG IANA plan, and these will maically solve all accountability problems caused by the absence of the NTIA.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:AGree totall @OCL  new build  does not mean more trusted or accountable one

  Guru Acharya:+1 for Strawman 9

  Milton Mueller:and ogh, they will happen in the future, AFTER ICANN is fixed. yeah

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Greg, strawman 9 is a good option.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Still don't understand why 4 gnso and only 2 cctld

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):In fact, new structures will inevitably have unforseen gotcha's associated with them.

  Milton Mueller:Strawman 9 looks better to me than the other strawmen. "If it only had a brain" ;-)

  Staffan Jonson:Agree: "Still don't understand why 4 gnso and only 2 cctld"

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:WHo are other gtlds?

  Donna Austin, RySG:Staffan, it's important to separate gTLD registries from the GNSO for this exercise.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Quickly divide the ccNSO into 3 sub-groups and then there will have to be 3+1 ccTLDs

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:but are gtld-focussed

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:At least  SM #9 as a starting point is assuming a smaller design

  Staffan Jonson:Donna: Yes, I think it is early to set numbers (especially before functions)

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):yes

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:form follows function, yes please!

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Staffan, I agree function is important and while we haven't agreed on functions, I think we do have some understanding of the intent.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:cctlds have to work with their own stakeholders

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):It was ironic, but since we are recognizing gNSO constructs, it would be appropriate to do the same for the ccNSO

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:I'd agree with Alan in part:  it is better to see the wider multi-stakeholder community with gac & alac than just those stakeholders already in the gnso tent

  Milton Mueller:Martin, there is huge overlap between ALAC and GNSO. NCSG, for example, has dozens of members who are also ALAC.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:if it is a matter of being in the kitchen - don't we all want to be there?

  Milton Mueller:or At LArge rather than ALAC per se

  Gary Campbell:@milton that is true

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Not got a phone line!

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Milton, and yet we often take diametrically oppised views.

  Milton Mueller:And there is major overlap between governments and ccTLD operators

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):opposed

  Grace Abuhamad:@Martin -- would you like a dial out? we offer those for any calls

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@milton:  as cctlds most of us see governments as one of our stakeholders.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Grace:  don't have a phone!

  Milton Mueller:good, that works at the territorial level, Martin

  Staffan Jonson:I guess what I’m saying is that representativity shouldn’t necessary be inside the MRT. It is (maybe) based on the notion that every institution should be democratic, and thereby populated with every stakeholder. That might be good in theory, but not in practice. I would argue that we need an operational and minimalistic organization judging wether policy is upheld or not (dicotohmy). If policy is deemed not implemented, the MRT should not necessary be a court to resolve this. Instead, they might send this to the MS community.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@milton:  but we do not represent governments

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Avri, ALAC is NOT ncommercial. There may be commercial parters of a small number of ALSes, just as an NGO may have a commercial partner.

  Grace Abuhamad:@Martin -- do you want to try with your computer microphone?

  Avri Doria:Alan, that is what i said.

  Milton Mueller:Agree with Steffan, when it comes to IANA policy implementation is fairly binary (either the correct RZ change was made or not)

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):It applies just as muchto NCSG

  Fatima Cambronero:Milton that is very reductionist. So that governments are also Internet end users, then we don't need more governments because they are already represented as users. C'mon...

  Milton Mueller:Yes, we don't WANT national interest to interfere with Internet governance Fatim

  Avri Doria:Alan, NCSG is just non commercial users and registrants.

  Avri Doria:the only group that is.

  Milton Mueller:If we wanted governemnts to be represented fully, we'd put this all in the ITU

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Milton - are you serious ....

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Avri, please identify the commercial parts of ALAC/At-Large.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@grace:  as I keep losing adobe, I suspect my bandwidth is too low or my connection too wobbly!

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Anyway, said what I wanted to say

  Milton Mueller:Elise: serious about what?

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Greg:  yes:  my hols!

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:As the link between registries and registrants, it would seem sensible to ensure that registrars are at least nominally included in the csc.

  Grace Abuhamad:@Martin, understood. just wanted to make sure we exhausted all options :)

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:thanks:  normal service will resume next week!

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Never mind - I have no mic avaliable  - we have to talk later :)

  Grace Abuhamad:@Elise, would you like a dial out?

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Grace - ok

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:you're breaking up a bit Avri

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Donna, "only Rys can judge whether IANA is meeting SLA is at odds with the NTIA currently being one of the judges (as they do review IANA outputs)

  Steve Crocker:As a minor point, note that root server operators are also customers of IANA in the sense that they too have entries in the root zone.  That is, they have their own primary data that is published in the root zone.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Alan, I don't believe it is, my understanding is that the MRT would perform the role of NTIA.

  Steve Crocker:RSSAC and SSAC are different.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Donna, I have no problem with that in theory, but hard to reconcile with statement that it wold only meet once a year as has been proposed...

  Steve Crocker:They are similar, of course, in that they both include technical people who understand the technology, but SSAC does not publish information in the root zone and it does not provide operational service.

  Suzanne Woolf:let's not get ahead of ourselves, RSSAC has no concensus on this yet, but my own sense is that the concern isn't representativity as such, it's making sure there's clarity on process, etc. and who to talk to if things go wrong.

  Suzanne Woolf:RSSAC has a "caucus" of experts to provide input to the root server operators on RSSAC as well.

  Suzanne Woolf:but technical, operational expertise does seem quite critical.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:agree with Donna re CSC

  Robert Guerra:+1 to steve's point. Specifically, that operational experience critical

  Staffan Jonson:The noncontracted parties are for sure customers

  Gary Campbell:@staffan, Iyes I think they are customers

  Robert Guerra:key thoughts for me - let's keep small, and focused on technical/operational. A larger composition runs against many of the ccomments that we received.

  Donna Austin, RySG:ccTLDs are non-contracted parties, so yes they are customers.

  Suzanne Woolf:I'd be interested in a case that SSAC should be represented and RSSAC, not-- RSSAC's remit is specifically root server system matters, SSAC's is broader but does not supercede.

  Suzanne Woolf:but this level of detail may be premature before the comments are considered too

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Greg:  but that will only work if the MRT goes out for a wider discussion.  It should not make decisions on its own

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:@Greg:  yes

  Avri Doria:Suzanne, i think that one of the things going on is some have read the comments and are taking then into account and some are discussing from a pre comment perspective.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:It has to bring the wider community with it

  Robert Guerra:perhaps we should also discuss what effect of a larger group would have on operational efficiency. How would process and size slow down decisions vs. present day?

  Suzanne Woolf:@Avri right, maybe get this group more on the same page?

  Robert Guerra:How many do the role now ? 2-3? vs 11 still a big difference...

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:So that would also mean not acting as gatekeeper in the process:  not authorising changes

  Staffan Jonson:How should this coming organization be able to meet any potential institutional change of e.g. ICANN?In my view, remedy is:-   Isolation of scoop – a minimalistic approach already argued for a lot-  Decentralization of naming policy – decentralization by automation of RZ update.-        Functional separability – Not necessary separation, but readyness for separation

  Guru Acharya:+1. The MRT charter should require a review of the composition in the future.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Who do you trust to do that review and who makes the ultimate decision on change?

  Steve Crocker:Alan, if you postulate a distinction between ICANN and IANA and then further postulate a possible takeover by the ITU, are you imagining the ITU would be taking over ICANN or taking over IANA?

  Guru Acharya:I believe the members of the MRT and the constituencies that they represent would be the best judges of the need for change.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Steve, I was presuming that in the CWG model, IANA is already permanently accounted for, and I was referring to just ICANN.

  Steve Crocker:Alan, I think the IANA function is the more likely target

  Avri Doria:Yes, and the gaming of rules is reason to minimize rule making.  I also say that that the presuppostion of gaming is one of the major games people play.

  Steve Crocker:Alan, though the money is with ICANN, so that may well be the real target

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@Steve, I agree, but that was not the premise of this CWG-proposal based discussion. I have made it clear that someone less than optimal "winning" a future RFP from Contract Co is a real possibility and this threat.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):this=thus

  Donna Austin, RySG:Good job Greg

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:OK THANKS  bye all...   Now onto the next back to back  overnight meeting for today *sigh*

  Staffan Jonson:Thank You for good chairing and a good call

  Avri Doria:thanks, bye.

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large):bye all

  Fatima Cambronero:thanks @Greg, all. Bye

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:thanks all

  Brenden Kuerbis:Thx Greg, bye all

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:bye all and thanks

  Steve Crocker:Goodbye

  Gary Campbell:Bye