Jordan,

Note that I am not suggesting the "Noah's Ark" approach with multiple representatives of very possible stakeholder group.  I am suggesting a very moderate amount of stakeholder participation.  I think it is healthy and necessary to have this.

Greg

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
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