<html>
<body>
At 23/03/2015 02:44 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi all,<br><br>
On 23 March 2015 at 05:25, Greg Shatan
<<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>I recognize that the registries have a unique and significant
interest in the continuing operational excellence of the IANA
Functions.<br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<br>
</dl><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
cheers<br>
Jordan </blockquote><br>
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.<br><br>
Alan</body>
</html>