[CWG-Stewardship] Direct customers vs. the rest of stakeholders

[Avri Doria]

hi,

On 22-May-15 18:46, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> I think that the difference is that registries interact directly with IANA
>> to make changes in the root and it is the responce to these changes
>> that we are measuring wrt the SLEs.
> Exactly. And let me agree with Suzanne's careful deconstruction of direct vs. indirect. 
> Registries are making entries in the root zone, registrants are using those entries. 

As  i noted, the SLE are the reason for it being reasonable for the CSC,
which concerns itself with SLE for being Registry heavy with a few
Liaison.  It is not a matter of being a so-called direct customer, it is
a matter of managing to a SLE.

As for Suzanne's deconstruction,  It was a good explanation, but I do
not agree with the use of direct versus indirect.  they do have a
different perspectives, but I still see both of that as just customers
of a different type.

My issue is with the multistakeholder nature of the IANA Function Review
and the Separation Cross Community Working Group and the PTI Board*, 
where it has nothing to do with being a direct customer or not.  At that
level they are both customers, customers of a different type - one makes
entries  and one uses entries - but both customers.  It is in these
situations where I see no reason to give the Registries disproportionate
representation.

avri

* On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead of having
a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should have a majority
of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder modality.   e.g 1
ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com