[CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions

[Gomes, Chuck]

Andrew,

Maybe I should have chosen a better word than 'solve':  "this might be a problem better COORDINATED by the ICG in its role."  It seems to me that it is exactly the ICG's role to collaborate with the parties involved and it seems clear that there are more parties than just the CWG.

At the same time, I have no objection to the CWG taking the lead on this if that is the course chosen.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 10:16 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions

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