[CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier

[Alan Greenberg]

I am neither Olivier nor a +1, but I'll try.

First, the process IS politicized. All you are 
doing is ensuring that only one faction has a 
voice. Yes, as in political systems, that 
"simplifies things" but does not necessarily make 
it better. This entire discussion reminds me of 
the statement attributed to the then CEO of 
General Motors - "What is good for General Motors 
is good for the Country (ie the USA)", a 
statement to which can rationalize all sorts of 
corporate misbehaviour seen in later year. In 
this case, "What is good for Registries is good 
for the Internet".  It will certainly be true 
much of the time, but I think it presumptuous to 
assume that this will be the case in all future 
instances. There may well be cases that in the 
future, that there is a policy that is decided 
governing how IANA is to operate that does not 
meet with the complete satisfaction of 
registries. That is the nature of a multistakeholder policy process.

Second, if the policies, contracts, agreements, 
etc are clear, there should not be a lot of 
judgement call involved in this overseeing. And 
when there is, it indicates a problem that needs 
to be rectified at the policy/contractual level.

Alan

At 29/10/2014 11:47 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>Olivier, and all the +1-ers, are ignoring the 
>point that was made about the risks of 
>circumventing or vetoing community policy by 
>politicizing the operational and technical 
>functions via this kind of ‘oversight’
>
>Would you care to address this, please?
>
>
>From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Tracy Hackshaw @ Google
>Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:54 PM
>To: Lindeberg, Elise; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier
>
>+1
>
>Sent from BlackBerry Q10
>From: Lindeberg, Elise
>Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:02 PM
>To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; 
><mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier
>
>+ 1
>
>Elise
>
>Fra: 
><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] PÃ¥ 
>vegne av Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>Sendt: 29. oktober 2014 19:16
>Til: <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier
>
>Dear Becky,
>
>thanks for detailing the various functions and 
>going to depth showing none of the functions 
>involve policy. To be frank, I am somehow 
>baffled as to why end users would only be 
>interested in policy and not operations.
>On 29/10/2014 17:45, Becky Burr wrote:
>Again, to be clear, I am not unalterably opposed 
>to having other parts of the community 
>participate, but I don’t understand why they would want to.
>
>
>It's that set of eyes. End users would feel a 
>lot happier if they could watch... and warn.
>Kind regards,
>
>Olivier
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20141030/8ef77d17/attachment.html>