<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
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>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21-Feb-15 10:14, James Gannon wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:C68831EA-989E-46C8-A72D-59D5546C0992@cyberinvasion.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=Windows-1252">
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.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>James</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On 21 Feb 2015, at 14:29, Milton L Mueller <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div>
<span>I think ICANN has a stake, and thus agree that
it is both a regulator (as an institution) and a
stakeholder.</span></div>
<div>
<span>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.</span></div>
<div>
<span> </span></div>
<div>
<span> </span></div>
<div>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" name="_MailEndCompose"><span> </span></a></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<b><span>From:</span></b><span><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
Hi,</p>
<div>
<div>
On 20-Feb-15 17:58, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:</div>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
I rest my case: the ICANN Board is the
Regulator; not a 'stakeholder'. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">
<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>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>