[CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition

[Guru Acharya]

Chuck,

I think Richard's objection is a fair criticism of the process adopted by
the names community. His objection is with respect to the two classes of
participants in the CWG wherein consensus (and now financial resources for
the F2Fs) is only limited to members, which come from the chartering
organisations. Therefore, in his opinion, the process is not truly open to
the global multi-stakeholder community. Renaming observers to participants
does not address his concerns.

Read
forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00014.html and
forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html and
forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00013.html

There are many different variants and definitions of "multi-stakeholder"
and therefore neither of the two opinions can be said to be right or wrong.

I think it is unfair to say that he shouldn't have been encouraged to
participate in the CWG (or given that option as you call it). He has been
extremely active in the IETF working group and on the CRISP list. He is
providing valuable input to the other two communities, which this community
is now missing out on.

We should respect the alternate path (via ICG) that he has adopted and
should consider his comments seriously.

Regards,
Guru

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  I guess I question whether he should have been given that option.  It is
> not fair to have others who are volunteers and already overworked do his
> work.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria
> *Sent:* Monday, November 10, 2014 9:36 PM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> He was encouraged to join the list by several of us.  But he found the
> conditions in the charter unacceptable and has opted for this alternate
> path, as provided by the ICG.
>
> avri
>
> On 10-Nov-14 18:48, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> Milton,
>
>
>
> I personally think it would be much better if the ICG encouraged the JNC to have a representative participate in the IANA CWG rather than forward a very long and generic document to the CWG and expect those who are committing long hours of time already taking additional long hours to decipher the JNC comments and trying to fit them in to CWG work.  If they had a representative on the CWG as participant, that person could better express JNC positions than any of us could and would be allowed to participate fully except when it comes to directly deciding consensus.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
>
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:54 AM
>
> To: 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
>
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition
>
>
>
> With my ICG member hat on, I am conveying a comment we received to this group, at their request
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00009.html
>
>
>
> Milton L. Mueller
>
> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141111/5dda3bde/attachment.html>