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

Sun Nov 16 00:10:37 UTC 2014

I support the argument of Avri regarding the Multistakeholder approach.
If we were only looking at technical oversight, we do not need this approach. 

However, the task is to replace an administrative supervisor of IANA Function Operator (through the contract), who wants a new mechanism specifically  based on Multistakeholder approach.
For this reason I will suggest we focus on how the new arrangement would fit into the requirements of all stakeholders participating on equal footing and not on technical oversight.
Having said these, I also understand the point that the best technical overseers are the direct customers of IANA (Registries- gTLD and ccTLD), this may be included as a value add.
Mary Uduma

     On Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:12 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

 #yiv5332570735 #yiv5332570735 -- _filtered #yiv5332570735 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5332570735 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5332570735 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv5332570735 #yiv5332570735 p.yiv5332570735MsoNormal, #yiv5332570735 li.yiv5332570735MsoNormal, #yiv5332570735 div.yiv5332570735MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;color:#330033;}#yiv5332570735 a:link, #yiv5332570735 span.yiv5332570735MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5332570735 a:visited, #yiv5332570735 span.yiv5332570735MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5332570735 pre {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;color:#330033;}#yiv5332570735 span.yiv5332570735HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;color:#330033;}#yiv5332570735 span.yiv5332570735EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv5332570735 .yiv5332570735MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv5332570735 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv5332570735 div.yiv5332570735WordSection1 {}#yiv5332570735 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> 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> <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          _______________________________________________ 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/20141116/c41ff3ab/attachment.html>