Olivier, and all the +1-ers, are ignoring the point that was made about the risks of circumventing or vetoing community policy by politicizing the operational
and technical functions via this kind of ‘oversight’
Would you care to address this, please?
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Tracy Hackshaw @ Google
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:54 PM
To: Lindeberg, Elise; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Responding to Olivier
+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