<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">hi,<br>
<br>
As for Suzanne's deconstruction, It was a good explanation, but I do<br>
not agree with the use of direct versus indirect. they do have a<br>
different perspectives, but I still see both of that as just customers<br>
of a different type.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1 on this as well...in the numbers community i would not expect an ISP/end-user to be called lesser than the RIR just because they are not assigned /8s. The one who gets assigned /8 (is likened to the names registries) while others who get > /9 subnets (are likened to be names registrants). <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
My issue is with the multistakeholder nature of the IANA Function Review<br>
and the Separation Cross Community Working Group and the PTI Board*,<br>
where it has nothing to do with being a direct customer or not. At that<br>
level they are both customers, customers of a different type - one makes<br>
entries and one uses entries - but both customers. It is in these<br>
situations where I see no reason to give the Registries disproportionate<br>
representation.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Absolute +1; i don't think categorisation of customers should be practised to the benefit of "one community than the other" in multi-stakeholder participation, especially within this context. In the numbers world, whatever customer category you belong, you are recognised to have equal membership status on the floor.<br><br></div><div>Regards<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
* On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so instead of having<br>
a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it should have a majority<br>
of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder modality. e.g 1<br>
ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN Nomcom.<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank">http://www.avast.com</a><br>
<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><font color="#888888"><blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;font-family:garamond,serif">
<i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Seun Ojedeji,<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Federal University Oye-Ekiti<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">web: </span><a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a><br>
<span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Mobile: <a value="+2348035233535">+2348035233535</a></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><br></i><i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453" target="_blank"> </a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a></span></i><br><br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The key to understanding is humility - my view !<br></blockquote></blockquote></font><br></div></div>
</div></div>