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

[Alan Greenberg]

I strongly support the need for a MS component in the CSC. I have 
routinely said it will not be swamped by such people even if there 
were no limit to the numbers (which we are not even contemplating) 
because there will be a moderately heavy workload with no companion 
mandate from employers. But we need some level of balance.

Alan

At 22/03/2015 11:25 PM, Greg Shatan 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.
>
>We've been round and round on this before, both in the CWG and in 
>RFP3.  In RFP3, the conclusion was that there should be at least one 
>representative from the non-registries portion of the 
>multistakeholder community.  This will aid in keeping this an open, 
>transparent process.
>
>There is at least one positive aspect of this suggestion -- we don't 
>have to worry about the possibility of "capture" since it's already captured.
>
>On other points -- I have been participating (to a more modest 
>extent) in the CCWG as well as in this group.  I think the danger of 
>forum shopping or inconsistent results is way overstated in this 
>document.  There is a very real interest in coordination in both WGs 
>and I think the radical step of foregoing all accountability 
>concerns in this CWG is a radical solution to a very modest issue 
>(and one that is well in hand).  (I would also note that should such 
>a significant change in the remit of both groups be pursued, it 
>would require charter amendments for both groups, to be approved by 
>all of the chartering organizations.)
>
>I would also reject the suggestion that the MRT is excess baggage 
>and there is no need for truly multistakeholder oversight.
>
>We'll need to balance self-interest and public interest if we are to 
>get to the end of the road.
>
>Greg Shatan
>
>.
>
>On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Jordan Carter 
><<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>hi all, Martin:
>
>On 22 March 2015 at 18:22, Martin Boyle 
><<mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
>Hi Jordan,
>Your comment
>
> >
>In the end, between the CWG and the CCWG, we have to deal with the 
>post-contract environment, and we have to have a genuinely 
>multistakeholder solution for the overall oversight of the IANA 
>functions. I don't think a customer-only CSC achieves that, and nor 
>does an IAP - but they are parts of the general accountability 
>puzzle for sure."
>
>worries me.
>
>It seems to imply that we need multi-stakeholder at every level.
>
>I don't think that this is what the NTIA announcement says. Indeed 
>i'd say Customer in CSC has a specific meaning and the CSC should 
>work for customers to ensure good service.
>
>
>I am sorry that it came across that way because I completely agree 
>with you. I specifically do not think the customer committee has to 
>be the multistakeholder body - my view is that it should be a 
>customer committee.
>
>What I meant was that between CCWG and CWG, we also have to 
>construct the multistakeholder oversight process, that is broader 
>than the customers.
>
>HTH
>
>Jordan
>
>
>Best
>
>Martin
>
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 22 Mar 2015, at 15:03, Jordan Carter 
> <<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
> >
> > In the end, between the CWG and the CCWG, we have to deal with 
> the post-contract environment, and we have to have a genuinely 
> multistakeholder solution for the overall oversight of the IANA 
> functions. I don't think a customer-only CSC achieves that, and nor 
> does an IAP - but they are parts of the general accountability puzzle for sure.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Jordan Carter
>
>Chief Executive
>InternetNZ
>
>04 495 2118 (office) | <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649>+64 21 442 649 (mob)
><mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>Skype: jordancarter
>
>A better world through a better Internet
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150323/92f5295b/attachment.html>