[CWG-Stewardship] My concerns with the draft proposal and an alternative option

[Alan Greenberg]

As much as I appreciate your attempt at comprehending my (or perhaps 
our collective) motives, this has nothing to do with it.

This is not a value-the-poor-user issue.

I believe that we have invened an extremely cumbersome and possibly 
impossible-to-execute-well process that will have little impact but a 
high cost if the contract stays with ICANN, and if it is to move, 
there will be a high risk of either capture or the lessening of 
multistakeholder principles.

If I am wrong and we can pull this off in a transparent, practical 
and low-cost manner, dandy. But I have yet to hear ANY answers to the 
real concerns I have expressed.

Alan

At 29/11/2014 04:27 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

>I also understand that there may be a concern in At-Large community 
>that nothing could ever be as open and inclusive as ICANN is now, 
>especially with regard to user concerns.  I beleive the solution for 
>that is to make sure the process we transition to complies with 
>multistakeholder principles, i.e. bottom-up, open and inclusive &c., 
>and not to just accept that ICANN will continue becoming ever more 
>complaint with multistakeholder principles.  In fact I fear that 
>without the periodic RFP for the IANA contract, ICANN's commitment 
>to the multistakeholder principles may weaken in the face of other pressures.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141130/3c07e5e8/attachment.html>