<html>
<body>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 22/03/2015 11:25 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I recognize that the registries
have a unique and significant interest in the continuing operational
excellence of the IANA Functions.<br><br>
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>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.)<br><br>
I would also reject the suggestion that the MRT is excess baggage and
there is no need for truly multistakeholder oversight.<br><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica">We'll need to balance self-interest and
public interest if we are to get to the end of the road.<br><br>
Greg Shatan<br>
</font><br>
.<br><br>
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Jordan Carter
<<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>hi all, Martin:<br><br>
<dd>On 22 March 2015 at 18:22, Martin Boyle
<<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk">
Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Hi Jordan,<br>
<dd>Your comment<br><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>worries me.<br><br>
<dd>It seems to imply that we need multi-stakeholder at every
level.<br><br>
<dd>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><br>
</dl><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd>What I meant was that between CCWG and CWG, we also have to construct
the multistakeholder oversight process, that is broader than the
customers. <br><br>
<dd>HTH<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<dd>Jordan<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dl><br>
<dd>Best<br><br>
<dd>Martin<br><br>
<br>
<dd>Sent from my iPhone<br><br>
<dd>> On 22 Mar 2015, at 15:03, Jordan Carter
<<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> 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>
</dl><br><br>
<br>
<dd>-- <br>
<dd>Jordan Carter<br><br>
<dd>Chief Executive <br>
<dd>InternetNZ</b><br><br>
<dd>04 495 2118 (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649">+64 21
442 649</a> (mob)<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
<br>
<dd>Skype: jordancarter<br><br>
<dd>A better world through a better Internet </i><br><br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br><br>
</dl><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>