I agree with Jordan.
Although I doubt if we will need a CSC if we get the „enhancing ICANN’s accountability” right (and I for one won’t need one), the name says it: no point to have more than customers only because it should be limited to deal with IANA services customers’ issues only.
It is indeed NOT the multistakeholder oversight mechanism we are trying to design and it should have none of the powers we are discussing.

Best,

Roelof

From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Date: maandag 23 maart 2015 08:44
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] RySG IANA Statement

Hi all,

On 23 March 2015 at 05:25, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I recognize that the registries have a unique and significant interest in the continuing operational excellence of the IANA Functions.

However, I believe there needs to be a voice and a role for the rest of the multistakeholder community in the CSC.  I don't think this is what the NTIA was looking for when it sought to "transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community."  A customer only CSC with no other organized oversight body sounds like a registries paradise, but not a multistakeholder reality.



I think the difference is in the "in the CSC" bit. If there is a customer committee for the customers, that body isn't the multistakeholder oversight body. It can't function as such.

If the CWG ends up trying to squeeze everything (customer representation, multistakeholder oversight, etc) into one body, it is not going to be able to create a coherent proposal - in my opinion.

cheers
Jordan 

--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet