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

[James Gannon]

I would somewhat agree with Milton, I would have concerns about the board being given a special liaison separate to its ability to participate in the work of the CWG as participants, if a special liaison was required then this should have been captured in the chartering of the CWG with the board either being given a members slot or being given a defined role as a liaison in the charter.

I would be concerned that we run the risk of running afoul of the RFP from the ICG "Proposals should be developed through a transparent process that is open to and inclusive of all stakeholders interested in participating in the development of the proposal” if we think back to the initial foundation of the CWG we had a large amount of conflict over the division between members and participants, do we run the risk of going through that again with members, participants, official liaisons?

My 2c suggestion, would be that the chairs write a letter to the board inviting them to become active participants in the mailing list and work of the CWG to ensure that they are captured as relevant stakeholders (Some already are doing this but in personal capacities) that way we can both have input from the board which I agree would be beneficial to our work. I would not like to see also any group/representative elevated or singled out into formal status or position beyond that which the group has been working, very successfully, to date with.

James

On 21 Feb 2015, at 14:29, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:

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> [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<mailto: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





_______________________________________________
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/20150221/bb50e1fa/attachment-0001.html>