[CWG-Stewardship] multistakeholder principle was Re: [] FW: FW: CWG ... 2B

[Gomes, Chuck]

Avri,

I fully support the multistakeholder approach for policy development and for policy implementation but I don’t think it fits very well in the day-to-day implementation of IANA functions except at a very high level such as replacing the IANA Functions Operator as someone else already pointed out.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 3:11 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] multistakeholder principle was Re: [] FW: FW: CWG ... 2B

Hi,

I think we need to start from principles, as opposed to having a solution and making sure the principles fit the desired solution.

And if we are stating that we think 'one Stakeholder Group is more relevant than all other stakeholder types' and by virtue of that have primacy in decision making, then that should be stated explicitly in the principles section.   If it is already then I missed it.

I prefer the equal-footing multistakeholder principle, but if there is near consensus for the one stakeholder above all stakeholders viewpoint, I would like to understand.

Thanks

avri
On 15-Nov-14 01:33, Guru Acharya wrote:

Avri



I'm sure your viewpoints are not being ignored. Peace. I forgive you for

your sin.



Nobody is saying multi stakeholder compositions are not applicable or there

is consensus against it. Please look at strawmans 2 and 3.



I intact support a multi-stakeholder composition.



I'm just saying I don't agree there is consensus against a registry only

composition, which you seem to be eliminating by way of the principle that

you are suggesting.

 On 15 Nov 2014 11:51, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org><mailto:avri at acm.org> wrote:



 Hi,



Apologies, guess I picked the wrong email.  I hope I can be forgiven for

this sin.



I guess that means that my viewpoints will just be ignored.



But if this group is able to decide that multistakeholder models are not

applicable, no matter which thread an email is attached to. I think we may

be in more trouble than I think we are.  Are you saying we have consensus

on a principle against commitment to the multistakeholder model?  How can

that be when the multistakeholder model is really one of the first

principles we much meet for an NTIA solution



avri



On 14-Nov-14 22:48, Guru Acharya wrote:



Avri - You got the wrong thread. This thread is for RFP2B and not the

principles.



And your suggested principle for a multi-stakeholder composition of the

oversight council appears to be in contradiction to Strawman 1 and ignores

the range of discussions that happened on this list about the composition.



On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org><mailto:avri at acm.org> <avri at acm.org><mailto:avri at acm.org> wrote:





  Hi,



I have suggested a few edits to the doc.  hope I did it in the mandated

manner.



the changes refer to



- transparency and requirements that any and all audit reports be

published.

- bottom-up modalities

- multistakeholder nature of any committee or oversight arrangements.



Hope I did not mess up any of the formatting.



avri





_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<mailto:listCWG-Stewardship at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>







_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141115/59a4a4eb/attachment.html>