[discuss] Does MM have legs?

[Mike Roberts]

There is a nominal proposition before us that expansion of MS, as currently used in various forms within Internet infrastructure organizations, will satisfy the NTIA requirements for a follow on to its oversight of IANA.

This needs further elucidation.

For instance, current use of MS is mostly as an additional layer of inclusiveness on top of organizational processes that are founded in a statutory base.   That is, for example, within the bylaws of a public benefit non-profit corporation.

Some of the list contributions, here and elsewhere, imply that an expanded MS to serve IG needs would “float" in the ether, self-sustaining through participation. It is hard to see how this lack of structure could satisfy requirements for accountability.  Interested parties want to see an entity charged with responsibility. If there is to be an entity, what are its attributes?  Where sited, under what rule of law, with what measures of stability, and most importantly, what assurances of competence to undertake oversight of one of the Internet’s most critical operational processes?

If I have it right, the IGP contribution relies on the legal structure and stability of the registries to provide the necessary assurances. That is a positive step, as far as it goes, but the inherent conflict of having one major IG stakeholder take responsibility on behalf of all others, to conduct what amounts to a form of peer review, will be a serious obstacle for many.

So, is there a prescription for a revised MS that has “legs?”

- Mike