[ON CWG-STEWARDSHIP MAILING LIST] All: This conversation "jumped the tracks" from the CWG-Stewardship mailing list to the CCWG-Accountability mailing list (thanks, Alan, for pointing that out. I am now bring it back to CWG-Stewardship with this post. If future respondents could respond from here on in and not on the CCWG-Accountability thread, I think that would be a good thing. I've taken the liberty of cc'ing those who have already participated in this thread.... 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