Dear Chuck,

an IFRT with Registries having a significant role would be, in my opinion, an unbalanced group - and it is precisely when a group is unbalanced that it then risks being used for lobbying, influence and purposes other than one that is balanced where everyone has the ability to restore balance.

The ATRT is multistakeholder group. As a result, it is not political. I see the IFRT as something similar, for IANA. That's where the multistakeholder balance need to be.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 18/05/2015 17:07, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

What are you cringing at Olivier? The separation review would be done by the IFRT with full community involvement. The IFRT would not be led or controlled by registries; they would just have a significant role. I will say it again: the IFRT is M-S.

Chuck

From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 10:44 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Seun Ojedeji
Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process

Dear Chuck,

On 18/05/2015 14:29, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

I did not say that IFRT should be largely composed of ccTLD and gTLD registries. I simply said that the IFRT composition should have stronger participation of ccTLD and gTLD registries than is proposed currently. If the IFRT is doing a separation review, it is more important than ever for there to be strong direct customer participation. I fully agree that IFRT must be M-S.

I cringe at this. If the decision for separation is to be decided by the IRFT then it will need to be accepted by all SOs & ACs & the group needs to be multistakeholder.
The CSC is already Registry-led, and quite rightly so. Separation does not solely affect direct customers. It is such a large step, it affects everyone.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html