[CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG

[Milton L Mueller]

I think ICANN has a stake, and thus agree that it is both a regulator (as an institution) and a stakeholder.
However, since the transition involves ICANN role and power more than any other stakeholder's I think ICANN should have a voice but I object to the chairs apparent decision to privilege them with a liaison.



From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 6:29 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG

Hi,
On 20-Feb-15 17:58, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:

I rest my case: the ICANN Board is the Regulator; not a 'stakeholder'.


Just because some entity may or may not be a regulator under some definition for 'regulator' does not say anything about whether or not it is also a stakeholder grouping or comprised of stakeholders.

I personally I think of the Board as staff since they are paid by ICANN.  And I think that staff are stakeholders too.

There are probably many other ways in which their stakeholder nature can be argued.  From the most basic defintion, they too have a stake in the recommendations and decisions being made.  If one has a stake in a decison, they are, by definition, a stakeholder.

One of the most surprising aspects of multistakeholderism is the tendency some have to define others as not having a stake.

avri





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150221/7298b614/attachment.html>