[ON CCWG-ACCOUNTABILITY MAILING LIST] All, This conversation inadvertently went forward on the CCWG-Accountability mailing list when it is a discussion of a CWG working topic among participants in the CWG. I've taken the liberty of moving it back to the CWG-Stewardship mailing list, so that everyone in CWG-Stewardship can have the benefit of the discussion. I would ask that this thread stop here on the CCWG-Accountability mailing list, unless there is a CCWG-Accountability related discussion to be had on this topic. Thanks! Greg Shatan On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:46 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

At 23/03/2015 02:44 AM, Jordan Carter 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

I am not sure why this discussion is taking place on the Accountability mailing list. Regardles, I note that including a MS component for transparency and the ability to raise red flags does not change the overall nature of the body.

Alan