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

[Alan Greenberg]

At 23/03/2015 02:44 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>On 23 March 2015 at 05:25, Greg Shatan 
><<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>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

I am not sure why this discussion is taking place on the 
Accountability mailing list. Regardles, I note that including a MS 
component for transparency and the ability to raise red flags does 
not change the overall nature of the body.

Alan 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150323/581fe65c/attachment.html>