<div dir="ltr"><div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">@Rafik: Thank you for addressing one of the substantive issues raised by me. I appreciate your clarification that there will be no limit to the number of observers. I further request you to clarify the following:</span><br></div></div><div><div><div><font color="#000000" face="arial, sans-serif">1) How will you reach "broad support" or consensus of the community as mandated by NTIA if you are restricting consensus to the members (comprised only of ALAC, gNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC)</font><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif"> who do not represent the majority of the stakeholders? For example, you may be aware that almost half of the ccTLDs feel that they are not represented by the ccNSO. Refer</span></div></div><div><font color="#000000" face="arial, sans-serif"><a href="http://domainincite.com/17113-cctld-anger-over-iana-group-capture" target="_blank">http://domainincite.com/17113-cctld-anger-over-iana-group-capture</a></font><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">2) Is there going to be a last date for becoming an observer or finalising the list of observers; if yes, what will happen to the individuals who want to join the discussion at a later point in time?; if there is no end date for finalising the list of observers, then what is the purpose behind creating that list?</span><br></div></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">3) What is the need for creating the group called observers when one should ideally want everyone to observe? One could draw inspiration from the workings of the ICG, which are open to observation by all and does not require registration or sending a statement of purpose.</span><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">As a suggestion, wont it be simpler/transparent/inclusive to remove the category called observers?</span><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">@Milton: </span>I personally agree with the logic that the proposals should come only from the operational communities as long as the proposal development processes are open and inclusive. I only request the ICG to monitor and ensure that the processes are genuinely open and inclusive. A review of the three proposal development processes at this stage would be more appropriate that ex-post fault picking. </div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">I wish I had avoided bringing the reference to ALACs objection at the 3rd conference call as it has distracted you from addressing the concern about the non-inclusive proposal development processes adopted by the three operational communities. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">The part about ALACs objection may please be ignored. However, since you have called me a liar, please allow me to refresh your memory with reference to the transcripts from the 3rd call:</span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">"</span><font color="#000000" face="arial, sans-serif">This is Jean‐Jacques speaking. To point out s</font><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">omething which poses a problem for the At Large representatives, and </span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">that is, throughout the text there is two strong distinctions between the </span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">operational communities or entities and the rest on the other.... </span><font color="#000000" face="arial, sans-serif">But from the input, right from the start, such a strong distinction being made, seems quite curious to me, and in fact, quite unacceptable. The proposals which will be made by the whole of the ICG, should be part of the proposals of the operational communities, and of other affected communities.</font><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">" </span></div><div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">to which your (MM) reply is "</span><font color="#000000" face="arial, sans-serif">Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in developing the responses. So what exactly is missing here Jean‐Jacques? I don’t get it.". The reply of other ICG members is along similar lines</font><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif"> "</span><font color="#000000" face="arial, sans-serif">it is best for stakeholders to work through the </font><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">operational communities in the creation of the operational proposals, </span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">but when you get to the second step, which is the creation of a proposal </span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">from the operational proposal, then the broader group of stakeholders </span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">can also directly input to us."</span></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net" target="_blank">suresh@hserus.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div style="color:black">
<div style="color:black;font-size:10pt">
<p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;color:black;font-size:10pt">Btw -
Pseudonymous speech is fine but trying to use igc as a rather misinformed
stalking horse for icann politics isn't a really good thing to do. Not that
it doesn't get tried quite often.. </p>
</div><div><div>
<div style="color:black">
<p style="color:black;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;margin:10pt 0px">On
22 September 2014 7:40:44 am Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>>
wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.75ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(128,128,128);padding-left:0.75ex"><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-color:blue;border-left-width:1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">></span>The ICG, in the
RFP, has mandated that "proposals" are to come only from the
three operational communities.<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Not
true. The processes are _<i>convened</i>_ by the operational communities,
and need to be centered there because of their direct use of the IANA
functions,
but the processes are _<i>required</i>_ to be open. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">></span>The ICG has
also proposed that any "comments" sent to the ICG by individuals
(not belonging to any of the three
<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">></span>communities) will be forwarded to
the operational communities for consideration.<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">That
is true. That is because people should not be misled into thinking that it
is the ICG that will be designing and developing the proposals. People who want
to make comment should participant in the operational community process.
Sending us comments is a sure way to make sure that the people who really
need to hear your comments will not get them directly.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">However,
after we have received finished proposals from all 3 OC’s and have
assembled a proposal for the NTIA, there will be a public comments period
on the
entire proposal <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">></span>The rationale
for excluding individuals from sending proposals is that the processes
initiated by the three
<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">></span>operational communities will be
inclusive and open to participation by all.<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Not
quite correct. The main rationale for not sending proposals to the ICG
(either from individuals or anyone else) is that WE AREN’T MAKING A
DECISION AS TO
WHAT IS A GOOD PROPOSAL. That is to be decided in a bottom up fashion in a
process convened by 3 distinct Operational communities.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">></span>The opposition
to this by ALAC was rejected outright by the remaining members of the ICG
<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">>
</span>in the 3rd conference call.<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">False,
all of the amendments and clarifications sought by ALAC and by NCUC were
incorporated into the RFP.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">You
are either lying or you did not listen to the conference call.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>