<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi,<br>
<br>
As we have discussed in the Policy and Implementation WG in the
GNSO, one cannot so cleanly cleave between the policy aspects and
the implementation issues. Something as simple as not implementing
a policy required feature, perhaps one that the registries did not
favor, but demanded by other stakeholders warrants the presence of
a full spectrum of stakeholders. Additionally potential issues
such as IANA's response to 'governmental' requests for changes in
the databases are policy issues that go beyond the operational
remit.<br>
<br>
Beyond that, while the varied registries, and I assume registry
service providers, are direct customers, all of ICANN represents
the interests of the indirect customers. One degree of
indirection is not enough to remove the relevance of a
stakeholder.<br>
<br>
thanks<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
On 15-Nov-14 10:11, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4946866B@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Avri,
I fully support the multistakeholder approach for policy development and for policy implementation but I don’t think it fits very well in the day-to-day implementation of IANA functions except at a very high level such as replacing the IANA Functions Operator as someone else already pointed out.
Chuck
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 3:11 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] multistakeholder principle was Re: [] FW: FW: CWG ... 2B
Hi,
I think we need to start from principles, as opposed to having a solution and making sure the principles fit the desired solution.
And if we are stating that we think 'one Stakeholder Group is more relevant than all other stakeholder types' and by virtue of that have primacy in decision making, then that should be stated explicitly in the principles section. If it is already then I missed it.
I prefer the equal-footing multistakeholder principle, but if there is near consensus for the one stakeholder above all stakeholders viewpoint, I would like to understand.
Thanks
avri
On 15-Nov-14 01:33, Guru Acharya wrote:
Avri
I'm sure your viewpoints are not being ignored. Peace. I forgive you for
your sin.
Nobody is saying multi stakeholder compositions are not applicable or there
is consensus against it. Please look at strawmans 2 and 3.
I intact support a multi-stakeholder composition.
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.
On 15 Nov 2014 11:51, "Avri Doria" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@acm.org"><avri@acm.org></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@acm.org"><mailto:avri@acm.org></a> wrote:
Hi,
Apologies, guess I picked the wrong email. I hope I can be forgiven for
this sin.
I guess that means that my viewpoints will just be ignored.
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
avri
On 14-Nov-14 22:48, Guru Acharya wrote:
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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@acm.org"><avri@acm.org></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@acm.org"><mailto:avri@acm.org></a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@acm.org"><avri@acm.org></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@acm.org"><mailto:avri@acm.org></a> wrote:
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 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship"><mailto:listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship></a>
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org"><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>