<html>
<body>
Thanks Milton, <br><br>
You have given the perfect example of why I try not to use analogies in
this kind of discussion (btw, it was Becky's, not mine).<br><br>
As has been suggested, I am happy to wait until SG2a completes its
work.<br><br>
In the meantime, it might be useful if you (who clearly understands this
issue) would come up with some scenarios how the oversight only by the
affected parties would work. Not the easy case where a homogeneous set of
Rys calls IANA out, they say Oops, and fix things, but more complex ones
where not all oversight group members agree that there is a
problem.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 30/10/2014 11:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Alan,<br>
Let me clarify what I mean by politicization. And let me use your own
analogy of hiring an electrician to fix the wiring in your house. <br>
<br>
Yes, if you hire an electrician you have the right and the duty to engage
in “oversight” as s/he does the work. What some people seem to be
proposing here, however is that both the decision which electrician to
hire and the oversight of that work should be done not by you, but by a
broadly representative neighborhood committee (because, you know, if your
house burns down theirs might be affected ;-) <br>
<br>
And once that committee is in place, it just so happens that one of the
members insists that you use electrician X, who happens to be his brother
in law. Another committee member, a Labor party member, complains that
the electrical company you want to use doesn’t use enough employees and
there ought to be two electricians, not one, on the job. But he gets into
a big argument with the Conservative party member of the committee (who
of course had to be included to balance representation). Another one
doesn’t know anything about wiring but has just read a magazine article
in Popular Science and insists that certain experimental techniques he
read about be used, even though the guy doing the work has never used
them before. And so on.<br>
<br>
The point is ‘broadening representation’ sounds good but oftentimes
all it really does it bring a lot of people into the picture with
personal or political agendas that have nothing to do with the basic task
at hand. The incentives and issues of the committee members can easily be
misaligned with the needs of the person directly affected by the work.
<br>
<br>
Of course this is just an analogy used for illustrative purposes and
doesn’t prove anything. But I think it clarifies my concerns about
politicization. We really don’t want to make the IANA implementation
become a second policy development process, and the emphasis on
representation and inclusion in the oversight of these functions is
almost certain to do that, in my opinion. <br>
<br>
<a name="_MailEndCompose"></a> <br>
<b>From:</b> Alan Greenberg
[<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" eudora="autourl">
mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 30, 2014 6:34 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier<br>
<br>
I am neither Olivier nor a +1, but I'll try.<br><br>
First, the process IS politicized. All you are doing is ensuring that
only one faction has a voice. Yes, as in political systems, that
"simplifies things" but does not necessarily make it better.
This entire discussion reminds me of the statement attributed to the then
CEO of General Motors - "What is good for General Motors is good for
the Country (ie the USA)", a statement to which can rationalize all
sorts of corporate misbehaviour seen in later year. In this case,
"What is good for Registries is good for the Internet".
It will certainly be true much of the time, but I think it presumptuous
to assume that this will be the case in all future instances. There may
well be cases that in the future, that there is a policy that is decided
governing how IANA is to operate that does not meet with the complete
satisfaction of registries. That is the nature of a multistakeholder
policy process.<br><br>
Second, if the policies, contracts, agreements, etc are clear, there
should not be a lot of judgement call involved in this overseeing. And
when there is, it indicates a problem that needs to be rectified at the
policy/contractual level.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 29/10/2014 11:47 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br><br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>Olivier, and all the +1-ers, are ignoring the point that was made
about the risks of circumventing or vetoing community policy by
politicizing the operational and technical functions via this kind of
âoversightâ <br>
<dd>Would you care to address this, please? <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of </b>Tracy
Hackshaw @ Google<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:54 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> Lindeberg, Elise; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond;
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>+1<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Sent from BlackBerry Q10<br>
<dd>From: </b>Lindeberg, Elise<br>
<dd>Sent: </b>Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:02 PM<br>
<dd>To: </b>Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond;
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>Subject: </b>Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>+ 1 <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Elise<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Fra:</b>
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] PÃ¥ vegne av</b> Olivier
MJ Crepin-Leblond<br>
<dd>Sendt:</b> 29. oktober 2014 19:16<br>
<dd>Til:</b>
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>Emne:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Dear Becky,<br><br>
<dd>thanks for detailing the various functions and going to depth showing
none of the functions involve policy. To be frank, I am somehow baffled
as to why end users would only be interested in policy and not
operations.<br>
<dd>On 29/10/2014 17:45, Becky Burr wrote:<br>
<dd>Again, to be clear, I am not unalterably opposed to having other
parts of the community participate, but I donât ut understand why they
would want to.<br><br>
<dd>It's that set of eyes. End users would feel a lot happier if they
could watch... and warn.<br>
<dd>Kind regards,<br><br>
<dd>Olivier<br><br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>