<p dir="ltr">Avri</p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm sure your viewpoints are not being ignored. Peace. I forgive you for your sin. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Nobody is saying multi stakeholder compositions are not applicable or there is consensus against it. Please look at strawmans 2 and 3.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I intact support a multi-stakeholder composition.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm just saying I don't agree there is consensus against a registry only composition, which you seem to be eliminating by way of the principle that you are suggesting.<br>
</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 15 Nov 2014 11:51, "Avri Doria" <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
Apologies, guess I picked the wrong email. I hope I can be forgiven
for this sin.<br>
<br>
I guess that means that my viewpoints will just be ignored.<br>
<br>
But if this group is able to decide that multistakeholder models are
not applicable, no matter which thread an email is attached to. I
think we may be in more trouble than I think we are. Are you saying
we have consensus on a principle against commitment to the
multistakeholder model? How can that be when the multistakeholder
model is really one of the first principles we much meet for an NTIA
solution<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<div>On 14-Nov-14 22:48, Guru Acharya wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Avri - You got the wrong thread. This thread is for RFP2B and not the
principles.
And your suggested principle for a multi-stakeholder composition of the
oversight council appears to be in contradiction to Strawman 1 and ignores
the range of discussions that happened on this list about the composition.
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Avri Doria <a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank"><avri@acm.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre> Hi,
I have suggested a few edits to the doc. hope I did it in the mandated
manner.
the changes refer to
- transparency and requirements that any and all audit reports be
published.
- bottom-up modalities
- multistakeholder nature of any committee or oversight arrangements.
Hope I did not mess up any of the formatting.
avri
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>