[CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Dear Milton,

sadly, I see that we have diametrically opposed views of the potential
for politics of a multistakeholder model. It has been shown time and
time again, in the real world, that concentration of powers breeds lack
of accountability and an increased risk for misuse of such powers.  A
more balanced group restores internal checks and balances that makes the
work of the group more objective.

Simply said, it's the difference between an authoritarian regime vs. a
democracy. Spread the responsibility/roles and you'll have better
accountability.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 18/05/2015 17:02, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Olivier, everything affects everyone, in some way or another. But the
> strength and directness of the effects vary greatly. Do you deny that
> IANA performance affects registry operators more directly, and more
> materially, than it affects anyone else? If it is appropriate for the
> CSC to be registry-led, why is it not also appropriate for a
> separation process to have strong direct customer participation? Chuck
> is not even demanding majority on this entity, just stronger than
> proposed.
>
>  
>
> Another issue you may not be attuned to is the possibility of
> political games being played. Though I agree that the IFR needs to be
> rooted in the broader MS ICANN community, I also recognize that the
> broader the representation on a committee is, the easier it is for its
> agenda to stray into areas not directly related to IANA performance.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Olivier MJ
> Crepin-Leblond
> *Sent:* Monday, May 18, 2015 10:44 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Seun Ojedeji
> *Cc:* avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
>
>  
>
> Dear Chuck,
>
> On 18/05/2015 14:29, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
>     I did not say that IFRT should be largely composed of ccTLD and
>     gTLD registries.  I simply said that the IFRT composition should
>     have stronger participation of ccTLD and gTLD registries than is
>     proposed currently.  If the IFRT is doing a separation review, it
>     is more important than ever for there to be strong direct customer
>     participation.  I fully agree that IFRT must be M-S.
>
>
> I cringe at this. If the decision for separation is to be decided by
> the IRFT then it will need to be accepted by all SOs & ACs & the group
> needs to be multistakeholder.
> The CSC is already Registry-led, and quite rightly so. Separation does
> not solely affect direct customers. It is such a large step, it
> affects everyone.
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150518/86b32eec/attachment.html>