<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:#330033;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Hey Avri,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I think for me at least it just seems that without some bracketing of the role to define why the board needs a specific liaison outside of the way that everyone
else participates in the work it could be perceived as giving special attention to one group/stakeholder over another. I don’t see why we need to formalize this anymore then we formalize any other participant joining the group.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Avri Doria<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, February 21, 2015 4:14 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi,<br>
<br>
I do not understand the special power of a liaison, other than to speak for some other group in a representative manner. I do not see it giving them any authority or consensus role in the decsions of CWG. It seems to me to be an informational role and not
a negotiation role. So personally I don't mind the addition of a liaison.<br>
<br>
Having said that, it does seem that it is controversial enough that perhaps it does need to be taken back to the chartering organizations for advice.
<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 21-Feb-15 10:14, James Gannon wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">I would somewhat agree with Milton, I would have concerns about the board being given a special liaison separate to its ability to participate in the work of the CWG as participants, if a special liaison was required then this should have
been captured in the chartering of the CWG with the board either being given a members slot or being given a defined role as a liaison in the charter.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would be concerned that we run the risk of running afoul of the RFP from the ICG "Proposals should be developed through a transparent process that is open to and inclusive of all stakeholders interested in participating in the development
of the proposal” if we think back to the initial foundation of the CWG we had a large amount of conflict over the division between members and participants, do we run the risk of going through that again with members, participants, official liaisons?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">My 2c suggestion, would be that the chairs write a letter to the board inviting them to become active participants in the mailing list and work of the CWG to ensure that they are captured as relevant stakeholders (Some already are doing
this but in personal capacities) that way we can both have input from the board which I agree would be beneficial to our work. I would not like to see also any group/representative elevated or singled out into formal status or position beyond that which the
group has been working, very successfully, to date with.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">James<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 21 Feb 2015, at 14:29, Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think ICANN has a stake, and thus agree that it is both a regulator (as an institution) and a stakeholder.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, since the transition involves ICANN role and power more than any other stakeholder’s I think ICANN should have a voice but I object to the chairs apparent decision to privilege them with a liaison.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"> </a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On
Behalf Of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Avri Doria<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, February 20, 2015 6:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Hi,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 20-Feb-15 17:58, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I rest my case: the ICANN Board is the Regulator; not a 'stakeholder'. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
Just because some entity may or may not be a regulator under some definition for 'regulator' does not say anything about whether or not it is also a stakeholder grouping or comprised of stakeholders.<br>
<br>
I personally I think of the Board as staff since they are paid by ICANN. And I think that staff are stakeholders too.<br>
<br>
There are probably many other ways in which their stakeholder nature can be argued. From the most basic defintion, they too have a stake in the recommendations and decisions being made. If one has a stake in a decison, they are, by definition, a stakeholder.<br>
<br>
One of the most surprising aspects of multistakeholderism is the tendency some have to define others as not having a stake.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>