[CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions

[Christopher Wilkinson]

> ICG has been painfully clear that it will not solve problems itself.

A nice theory, but it has also been painfully clear since ICANN 50 in London, that would not happen like that.

CW




On 03 Oct 2015, at 04:15, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 10:14:19PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
>> I would agree with you that the requirements in '1150 (sections 2
>> and 3)' need to be met but the fact that the CWG proposal identified
>> them doesn't mean that the CWG is the best entity to meet them.  In
>> fact, because of the unique nature of this situation, this might be
>> a problem better solved by the ICG in its role.
> 
> The ICG has been painfully clear that it will not solve problems
> itself.  Those problems are to be solved in the affected communities.
> I think this is an excellent principle, because if we're really
> supposed to be multi-stakeholder then the problems need to be resolved
> closest to the communities affected.  The names community is the
> operational community affected by the root zone arrangements.  So any
> policy questions ought to be hashed out here, not elsewhere.
> 
> I have no opinon on whether the text we have is adequate, but I
> support strongly the position that this WG and nowhere else is where
> the decision of adequacy needs to be reached.
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship