<html>
<body>
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>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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 ‘oversight’<br>
<br>
Would you care to address this, please? <br>
<br>
<a name="_MailEndCompose"></a> <br>
<b>From:</b> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Tracy
Hackshaw @ Google<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:54 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Lindeberg, Elise; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond;
cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier<br>
<br>
+1<br>
<br>
Sent from BlackBerry Q10<br>
<b>From: </b>Lindeberg, Elise<br>
<b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:02 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond;
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier<br>
<br>
+ 1 <br>
<br>
Elise<br>
<br>
<b>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>] <b>På vegne av</b> Olivier
MJ Crepin-Leblond<br>
<b>Sendt:</b> 29. oktober 2014 19:16<br>
<b>Til:</b>
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<b>Emne:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier<br>
<br>
Dear Becky,<br><br>
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>
On 29/10/2014 17:45, Becky Burr wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Again, to be clear, I am not unalterably opposed to having other
parts of the community participate, but I don’t understand why they
would want to.<br><br>
</dl><br>
It's that set of eyes. End users would feel a lot happier if they could
watch... and warn.<br>
Kind regards,<br><br>
Olivier<br><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>