<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">[ON CCWG-ACCOUNTABILITY MAILING LIST]</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All, </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This conversation inadvertently went forward on the CCWG-Accountability mailing list when it is a discussion of a CWG working topic among participants in the CWG. I've taken the liberty of moving it back to the CWG-Stewardship mailing list, so that everyone in CWG-Stewardship can have the benefit of the discussion. I would ask that this thread stop here on the CCWG-Accountability mailing list, unless there is a CCWG-Accountability related discussion to be had on this topic.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thanks!</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg Shatan</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:46 AM, Alan Greenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><span class="">
At 23/03/2015 02:44 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi all,<br><br>
On 23 March 2015 at 05:25, Greg Shatan
<<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">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><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>
</dd></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></span>
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.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br>
Alan</font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>