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

[Olawale Bakare]

Hi,

I would think that derailing from the multistakeholder might be attributing
to the proposal's  timeline. However, the composition of "oversight body",
or OPRC as captured in the Strawman 1 may need rewording again. My thought.

Regards,
Wale
On Nov 15, 2014 3:12 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  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> <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> <avri at acm.org> <avri at acm.org> <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> 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/20141116/2376c302/attachment.html>