[CWG-Stewardship] Client Committee

[Milton L Mueller]

CW:
Off target again. No one is proposing to "exclude" ICANN legal, the question is whether they should have special posting privileges unlike anyone else on the CWG. Also, the legal advice we are seeking involves ICANN Inc.'s role, not Verisign's role, so there is not the same level of conflict of interest. Even so, if Verisign's legal team were suddenly given posting privileges and no one else on the CWG was, I expect you'd see the same concerns aired.

Let me reiterate that I agree with Greg and others that this is becoming an distraction.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of CW Lists

That's Okay, provided that other NTIA contractors are also excluded.

CW


On 15 Mar 2015, at 21:10, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:




As a result, some ICANN people have posting rights; maybe that will be changed.

MM: Hi, Greg. You noted that there were legitimate reasons why they had posting rights originally, but you also noted that those reasons no longer exist. So I see no reason why it should not be changed. Just put them in the same status (observer) as the rest of us.

I'm not saying the names will stay, but the deep symbolism and concern that has been attached to the names being on the list is without merit, and spending time discussing it is just a distraction from the real work we all have to do.

MM: Agreed, so let's just fix it.

_______________________________________________
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/20150316/84de7d63/attachment-0001.html>