[CWG-Stewardship] multistakeholder principle was Re: [] FW: FW: CWG ... 2B

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

As we have discussed in the Policy and Implementation WG  in the GNSO,
one cannot so cleanly cleave between the policy aspects and the
implementation issues. Something as simple as not implementing a policy
required feature, perhaps one that the registries did not favor, but
demanded by other stakeholders warrants the presence of a full spectrum
of stakeholders.  Additionally potential issues such as IANA's response
to 'governmental' requests for changes in the databases are policy
issues that go beyond the operational remit.

Beyond that, while the varied registries, and I assume registry service
providers, are direct customers, all of ICANN represents the interests
of the indirect customers.  One degree of indirection is not enough to
remove the relevance of a stakeholder.

thanks

avri


On 15-Nov-14 10:11, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Avri,
>
> I fully support the multistakeholder approach for policy development and for policy implementation but I don’t think it fits very well in the day-to-day implementation of IANA functions except at a very high level such as replacing the IANA Functions Operator as someone else already pointed out.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 3:11 AM
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] multistakeholder principle was Re: [] FW: FW: CWG ... 2B
>
> Hi,
>
> I think we need to start from principles, as opposed to having a solution and making sure the principles fit the desired solution.
>
> And if we are stating that we think 'one Stakeholder Group is more relevant than all other stakeholder types' and by virtue of that have primacy in decision making, then that should be stated explicitly in the principles section.   If it is already then I missed it.
>
> I prefer the equal-footing multistakeholder principle, but if there is near consensus for the one stakeholder above all stakeholders viewpoint, I would like to understand.
>
> Thanks
>
> avri
> On 15-Nov-14 01:33, Guru Acharya wrote:
>
> Avri
>
>
>
> I'm sure your viewpoints are not being ignored. Peace. I forgive you for
>
> your sin.
>
>
>
> Nobody is saying multi stakeholder compositions are not applicable or there
>
> is consensus against it. Please look at strawmans 2 and 3.
>
>
>
> I intact support a multi-stakeholder composition.
>
>
>
> I'm just saying I don't agree there is consensus against a registry only
>
> composition, which you seem to be eliminating by way of the principle that
>
> you are suggesting.
>
>  On 15 Nov 2014 11:51, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org><mailto:avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>  Hi,
>
>
>
> Apologies, guess I picked the wrong email.  I hope I can be forgiven for
>
> this sin.
>
>
>
> I guess that means that my viewpoints will just be ignored.
>
>
>
> But if this group is able to decide that multistakeholder models are not
>
> applicable, no matter which thread an email is attached to. I think we may
>
> be in more trouble than I think we are.  Are you saying we have consensus
>
> on a principle against commitment to the multistakeholder model?  How can
>
> that be when the multistakeholder model is really one of the first
>
> principles we much meet for an NTIA solution
>
>
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 14-Nov-14 22:48, Guru Acharya wrote:
>
>
>
> Avri - You got the wrong thread. This thread is for RFP2B and not the
>
> principles.
>
>
>
> And your suggested principle for a multi-stakeholder composition of the
>
> oversight council appears to be in contradiction to Strawman 1 and ignores
>
> the range of discussions that happened on this list about the composition.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org><mailto:avri at acm.org> <avri at acm.org><mailto:avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>   Hi,
>
>
>
> I have suggested a few edits to the doc.  hope I did it in the mandated
>
> manner.
>
>
>
> the changes refer to
>
>
>
> - transparency and requirements that any and all audit reports be
>
> published.
>
> - bottom-up modalities
>
> - multistakeholder nature of any committee or oversight arrangements.
>
>
>
> Hope I did not mess up any of the formatting.
>
>
>
> avri
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<mailto:listCWG-Stewardship at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20141115/b9c453f6/attachment-0001.html>