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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I do not understand the special power of a liaison, other than to speak
for some other group in a representative manner.  I do not see it giving
them any authority or consensus role in the decsions of CWG.  It seems
to me to be an informational role and not a negotiation role. So
personally I don't mind the addition of a liaison.

Having said that, it does seem that it is controversial enough that
perhaps it does need to be taken back to the chartering organizations
for advice. 

avri


On 21-Feb-15 10:14, James Gannon wrote:
> 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/20150221/76b4a8ab/attachment.html>