[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director

[Gomes, Chuck]

Speaking as another participant, not member, I don't think it should be too hard to get chartering SOs and ACs to approve a plan for providing some CWG representation throughout the implementation phase.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 5:07 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] PTI Board Composition: IANA Managing Director

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 04:45:38PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
> some fashion.  If we act like implementation is "not our problem," 
> because it's not within the four corners of our charter, we are 
> creating a problem, not solving one.

If the CWG (and I note, I'm not a member, but just a participant, so I don't have a vote) acts beyond its mandate, however, that also seems to create a problem, no -- one of legitimacy, I'd guess.

In other places where I'm active (like the free software community), the answer to this sort of institutional question is, "Here's my code/idea/patch, I don't care about the formalities" or something like that.  But ICANN doesn't appear to work that way, which is the reason I even asked the question.

> If we wipe our hands and walk away, because the proposal is now in the 
> ICG's hands, we might as well never have started in the first place.

I don't see how that follows from anything you said, and anyway I wasn't suggesting the CWG do that.  The CWG has a formal responsibility to be available to deal with the ICG, so it can't just pack up its tent.  But the additional items people are talking about do not, as nearly as I can tell, fall within the CWG's remit.  If someone wants to change that, I suggest it needs to be put to the chartering organizations lest they ask why the CWG is off undertaking work it was never asked to do.  This isn't to say those are not important issues.  But it's been painfully clear to me during some of the discussion in this group that my intuition about what to do when one spots an important issue is not the same as that of others within ICANN.  From where I sit, within the ICANN community it seems to be fairly important to be explicitly chartered to do something before you undertake it.

This is of course just my personal opinion, and if the CWG doesn't agree with me I imagine I'll find some way to lull myself to sleep!
But it does seem to me that one ought to attend to questions of legitimacy in this process.

Best regards,

A


--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship