[Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents

[Greg Shatan]

Ram,

There's an implicit assumption in your email that I would like to
challenge.  I would tend to disagree with the implicit assumption that the
CCWG only represents the "names community."  You may be conflating the CCWG
with the CWG-Stewardship, which was set up to represent the names
community.  The CCWG was not chartered in the same fashion and should not
be viewed as merely the voice of the "names community."

This line of argument opens another can of worms, or perhaps merely another
front in the Board's attack on the representativeness of the community.  It
could be extended to virtually any actions by the CCWG.  The end result is
a suggestion that the entire Accountability Proposal should be run through
the IETF and RIRs.  That concerns me greatly.

Greg



On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Ram Mohan <ram.mohan at icann.org> wrote:

> The protocol and number communities expect that the naming community not
> unilaterally require bylaw changes on the organization that includes
> functions that are critical to what they do without consultation. I don't
> see why that is something we should object to.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wp4-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
> Avri
> Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:53 AM
> To: wp4 at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents
>
> Hi,
>
> I do not see this.  This is ICANN accountabilty.  And the Protocol and
> Number communities have made it very clear that they are not intersteed in
> what the Names community does with accountability, or much of anything else
> the Names community cares about for that matter, as long as we leave them
> out of it.
>
> Also what do you think IANA is doing that related to human rights, as we
> have had pounded into our heads, they are not making policy, they just
> perform a clerical function doing what they are told to do by the OCs.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 07-Oct-15 05:02, ram.mohan wrote:
> > Adding something like this has potent impact on IANA, not simply ICANN
> > in a naming and policy function. Also see Sam Eisner's rationale.
> >
> > Any such suggestion should be run past the IETF and RIRs.
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wp4 mailing list
> Wp4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wp4 mailing list
> Wp4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp4/attachments/20151007/08844098/attachment-0001.html>