[CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier

[Gomes, Chuck]

Alan,

I didn’t say it would clarify it but that it would provide the context that would make it easier to discuss.

Chuck

From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 12:29 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier

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> [ 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<mailto: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: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier

+ 1

Elise

Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto: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: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20141030/5ee4af68/attachment.html>