[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

[Alan Greenberg]

At 21/05/2015 03:07 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

>....
>
>The idea that being an "interested party" should be a qualification 
>for participating in a decision causes even greater concern.  If 
>anything, this could be deemed a disqualification, since a party 
>with an interest in the outcome will tend to seek an outcome 
>beneficial to that interest, not the community's interest or the 
>public interest.  For a variety of reasons, we do not operate that 
>way -- being an interested party does not qualify one from 
>participating in a multistakeholder process relating to that 
>interest.  This makes it even more important that a truly inclusive 
>multistakeholder group be assembled to consider and resolve issues 
>regardless of whose ox is being gored, to balance the self-interest 
>of the interested parties and to assure the integrity of the process.
>
>Greg

Greg, I support that completely. And yet, we have continually been 
told that as the direct customers, only registries (perhaps with 
token other involvement) need to be involved in a all sorts of 
decisions related to IANA.

Alan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150521/a0bc30c3/attachment.html>