Guru, Are you willing and do you have the time to represent JNC’s viewpoint? Someone will have to do that for him if he isn’t willing to do it himself. If you are willing, will you be able to do it as well as he could? If so, that could work, but if you cannot do that, who will? I am just a participant but I haven’t let that limit my activity in the CWG. It is incumbent upon me to be able to support my positions sufficiently to convince others to modify their positions; if I do not, then they will not support ideas that I support. If I do, then I can possibly have an influence on the ultimate recommendations whether I can officially participate in the determination of consensus levels or not. The concern about members v. participants is based on the assumption that voting will be used to determine the final level of consensus. If the CWG follows the procedures in the charter, the CWG will continue to deliberate until there is strong support from most participants without resorting to a vote of members; besides members will involve the groups they represent in any positions they take and should also take into consideration the views expressed by those in the CWG that are different, and especially if they are well reasoned. Chuck From: Guru Acharya [mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:55 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition Chuck, I think Richard's objection is a fair criticism of the process adopted by the names community. His objection is with respect to the two classes of participants in the CWG wherein consensus (and now financial resources for the F2Fs) is only limited to members, which come from the chartering organisations. Therefore, in his opinion, the process is not truly open to the global multi-stakeholder community. Renaming observers to participants does not address his concerns. Read forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00014.html<http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00014.html> and forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html<http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html> and forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00013.html<http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00013.html> There are many different variants and definitions of "multi-stakeholder" and therefore neither of the two opinions can be said to be right or wrong. I think it is unfair to say that he shouldn't have been encouraged to participate in the CWG (or given that option as you call it). He has been extremely active in the IETF working group and on the CRISP list. He is providing valuable input to the other two communities, which this community is now missing out on. We should respect the alternate path (via ICG) that he has adopted and should consider his comments seriously. Regards, Guru On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I guess I question whether he should have been given that option. It is not fair to have others who are volunteers and already overworked do his work. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:36 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition Hi, He was encouraged to join the list by several of us. But he found the conditions in the charter unacceptable and has opted for this alternate path, as provided by the ICG. avri On 10-Nov-14 18:48, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Milton, I personally think it would be much better if the ICG encouraged the JNC to have a representative participate in the IANA CWG rather than forward a very long and generic document to the CWG and expect those who are committing long hours of time already taking additional long hours to decipher the JNC comments and trying to fit them in to CWG work. If they had a representative on the CWG as participant, that person could better express JNC positions than any of us could and would be allowed to participate fully except when it comes to directly deciding consensus. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:54 AM To: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement by JNC on IANA transition With my ICG member hat on, I am conveying a comment we received to this group, at their request http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00009.html Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship