[CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 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 “oversight” 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 ;-)
>
>

I think the example of Alan hiring an electrician for his house may not be
as encompassing enough for the subject matter since Alan would normally
have ownership of his household.

Try this:  Alan wanting to fix a transformer that is used by the entire
neighbourhood and after consulting with an electrician, he was made to
realise that the transformer was okay but the solution required was to
share the load by ensuring that each member of the neighbourhood does not
exceed certain voltage level. I don't think determining such process and
the oversight thereof will be done by Alan alone.

Cheers!

>
>
> *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 ‘oversight’
>
> Would you care to address this, please?
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <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; 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
> <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
> *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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141030/0fc41044/attachment-0001.html>