[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG IANA Statement

[Greg Shatan]

Jordan,

Note that I am not suggesting the "Noah's Ark" approach with multiple
representatives of very possible stakeholder group.  I am suggesting a very
moderate amount of stakeholder participation.  I think it is healthy and
necessary to have this.

Greg

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> On 23 March 2015 at 05:25, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I recognize that the registries have a unique and significant interest in
>> the continuing operational excellence of the IANA Functions.
>>
>> However, I believe there needs to be a voice and a role for the rest of
>> the multistakeholder community in the CSC.  I don't think this is what the
>> NTIA was looking for when it sought to "transition key Internet domain
>> name functions to the global multistakeholder community."  A customer only
>> CSC with no other organized oversight body sounds like a registries
>> paradise, but not a multistakeholder reality.
>>
>>
>>
> I think the difference is in the "in the CSC" bit. If there is a customer
> committee for the customers, that body isn't the multistakeholder oversight
> body. It can't function as such.
>
> If the CWG ends up trying to squeeze everything (customer representation,
> multistakeholder oversight, etc) into one body, it is not going to be able
> to create a coherent proposal - in my opinion.
>
> cheers
> Jordan
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150323/3eb9186d/attachment.html>