[Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents

[Ram Mohan]

Hi Greg,

I don’t believe I’m conflating the WGs, but thanks for the clarification all the same. What I hear from some folks in the protocol and numbering community is that the CCWG represents the names community (it’s not what was intended, I agree).

 

Adding Human Rights to bylaws that affect the other communities ought to have input from them. It’s not a “Board view”, or some other conspiracy theory, it’s my individual view as an engaged community member who happens to cross over across names, numbers and protocols.

 

-Ram

 

 

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 10:22 AM
To: ram.mohan at icann.org
Cc: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>; wp4 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents

 

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 <mailto: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>  [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________
Wp4 mailing list
Wp4 at icann.org <mailto: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/e895b2b8/attachment-0001.html>