[CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier

[Alan Greenberg]

Chuck, no one is disagreeing with the concept of 
policy issues being addressed as they are now. I 
am not sure how 2a will clarify this, but am 
happy to wait. If everyone puts it on hold.

Alan

At 30/10/2014 07:52 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Alan,
>
>I think your last sentence is the key 
>point.  Policy differences should be 
>‘rectified at the policy/contractual 
>level’.  That is a different level in the 
>processes for gTLDs and ccTLDs than when the 
>IANA functions operator is actually performing 
>its services.  I can’t speak for Milton, but I 
>think he is focusing on the very specific tasks 
>that the IANA functions operator does after the 
>policy differences have been resolved.  One of 
>the IANA functions enumerated in the IANA 
>functions contract is “verifying that ICANN 
>followed its own policy framework including 
>specific documentation demonstrating how the 
>process provided the opportunity for input from 
>relevant stakeholders and was supportive of the global public interest”.
>
>I believe that this will be easier to discuss 
>after the subgroup finishes its work on RFP 
>Section 2A, which I hope will be before the next meeting.
>
>Chuck
>
>From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 6:34 AM
>To: Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier
>
>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: 
><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>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; 
><mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>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 don̢۪t 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
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>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/20141030/8e28727f/attachment.html>