[CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Oct 30 16:29:10 UTC 2014
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
>ârectified at the policy/contractual
>levelâ. That is a different level in the
>processes for gTLDs and ccTLDs than when the
>IANA functions operator is actually performing
>its services. I canât 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 âverifying 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 interestâ.
>
>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 âoversightâ
>
>
>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]
>PÃÂ¥ 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 donât 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>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list