<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I recognize that the registries have a unique and significant interest in the continuing operational excellence of the IANA Functions.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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 "<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px">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.</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px">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.</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px">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.</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px">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.)</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px">I would also reject the suggestion that the MRT is excess baggage and there is no need for truly multistakeholder oversight.</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#000000" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px">We'll need to balance self-interest and public interest if we are to get to the end of the road.</span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#000000" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px"><br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#000000" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px">Greg Shatan</span></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px">.</span><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Jordan Carter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">hi all, Martin:<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On 22 March 2015 at 18:22, Martin Boyle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk" target="_blank">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Jordan,<br>
Your comment<br>
<span><br>
><br>
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."<br>
<br>
</span>worries me.<br>
<br>
It seems to imply that we need multi-stakeholder at every level.<br>
<br>
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.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>What I meant was that between CCWG and CWG, we also have to construct the multistakeholder oversight process, that is broader than the customers. </div><div><br></div><div>HTH</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Jordan</div></font></span><span class=""><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<div><div><br>
> On 22 Mar 2015, at 15:03, Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></span></div><br><br clear="all"><span class=""><div><br></div>-- <br><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64 21 442 649</a> (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>A better world through a better Internet </i><br><br></div></div></div></div>
</span></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>