<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Jordan,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:44 AM, 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,<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On 23 March 2015 at 05:25, Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</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"><div 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 style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div 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 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 style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>cheers</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>Jordan </div></font></span></div><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>
</blockquote></div><br></div>