[CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier

Thu Oct 30 16:38:02 UTC 2014

Thanks Milton,

You have given the perfect example of why I try 
not to use analogies in this kind of discussion 
(btw, it was Becky's, not mine).

As has been suggested, I am happy to wait until SG2a completes its work.

In the meantime, it might be useful if you (who 
clearly understands this issue) would come up 
with some scenarios how the oversight only by the 
affected parties would work. Not the easy case 
where a homogeneous set of Rys calls IANA out, 
they say Oops, and fix things, but more complex 
ones where not all oversight group members agree that there is a problem.

Alan

At 30/10/2014 11:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Alan,
>Let me clarify what I mean by politicization. 
>And let me use your own analogy of hiring an 
>electrician to fix the wiring in your house.
>
>Yes, if you hire an electrician you have the 
>right and the duty to engage in â€œoversightâ€ 
>as s/he does the work. What some people seem to 
>be proposing here, however is that both the 
>decision which electrician to hire and the 
>oversight of that work should be done not by 
>you, but by a broadly representative 
>neighborhood committee (because, you know, if 
>your house burns down theirs might be affected ;-)
>
>And once that committee is in place, it just so 
>happens that one of the members insists that you 
>use electrician X, who happens to be his brother 
>in law. Another committee member, a Labor party 
>member, complains that the electrical company 
>you want to use doesnâ€™t use enough employees 
>and there ought to be two electricians, not one, 
>on the job. But he gets into a big argument with 
>the Conservative party member of the committee 
>(who of course had to be included to balance 
>representation). Another one doesnâ€™t know 
>anything about wiring but has just read a 
>magazine article in Popular Science and insists 
>that certain experimental techniques he read 
>about be used, even though the guy doing the 
>work has never used them before. And so on.
>
>The point is â€˜broadening representationâ€™ 
>sounds good but oftentimes all it really does it 
>bring a lot of people into the picture with 
>personal or political agendas that have nothing 
>to do with the basic task at hand. The 
>incentives and issues of the committee members 
>can easily be misaligned with the needs of the 
>person directly affected by the work.
>
>Of course this is just an analogy used for 
>illustrative purposes and doesnâ€™t prove 
>anything. But I think it clarifies my concerns 
>about politicization. We really donâ€™t want to 
>make the IANA implementation become a second 
>policy development process, and the emphasis on 
>representation and inclusion in the oversight of 
>these functions is almost certain to do that, in my opinion.
>
>
>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>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 Ã¢€˜oversightÃ¢€™
>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] 
>PÃƒÂ¥ 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 donÃ¢€™t ut 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/20141030/7e103725/attachment-0001.html>