I think ICANN has a stake, and thus agree that it is both a regulator (as an institution) and a stakeholder. However, since the transition involves ICANN role and power more than any other stakeholder's I think ICANN should have a voice but I object to the chairs apparent decision to privilege them with a liaison. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 6:29 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG Hi, On 20-Feb-15 17:58, Christopher Wilkinson wrote: I rest my case: the ICANN Board is the Regulator; not a 'stakeholder'. Just because some entity may or may not be a regulator under some definition for 'regulator' does not say anything about whether or not it is also a stakeholder grouping or comprised of stakeholders. I personally I think of the Board as staff since they are paid by ICANN. And I think that staff are stakeholders too. There are probably many other ways in which their stakeholder nature can be argued. From the most basic defintion, they too have a stake in the recommendations and decisions being made. If one has a stake in a decison, they are, by definition, a stakeholder. One of the most surprising aspects of multistakeholderism is the tendency some have to define others as not having a stake. avri