"I am not unalterably opposed to having other parts of the community participate, but I don’t understand why they would want to."

I think that should be a subject of discussion with and between the "other parts of the community." If some of these other parts don't wish to participate that is one thing.  However, we should not be pushing them (us) away from participation -- it could be misinterpreted as sort of "Move along, nothing to see here folks..."  (which often means just the opposite).

Greg

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Tracy Hackshaw @ Google <tracyhackshaw@gmail.com> wrote:
+1

Sent from BlackBerry Q10
From: Lindeberg, Elise
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:02 PM
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier

+ 1

 

Elise

 

Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Sendt: 29. oktober 2014 19:16
Til: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier

 

Dear Becky,

thanks for detailing the various functions and going to depth showing none of the functions involve policy. To be frank, I am somehow baffled as to why end users would only be interested in policy and not operations.

On 29/10/2014 17:45, Becky Burr wrote:

Again, to be clear, I am not unalterably opposed to having other parts of the community participate, but I don’t understand why they would want to.


It's that set of eyes. End users would feel a lot happier if they could watch... and warn.
Kind regards,

Olivier



_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship