[governance] IANA Transition - Lack of Openess

[Jean-Christophe Nothias]

Milton,

Not to enter the details, - we are still years away from a democratic MS model indeed - but just reflecting about the tone and style of your answers to Guru... 

Weren't you the one calling for a global Internet community upraising back in Istanbul? Is this the way you want to help achieve this utopian community?

Could you hold your fire and address simply and gently legitimate questions and issues with a more subtile fashion so that your points, if correct, make it through, instead of behaving like some sort of English Pitt bull? These questions were rather good, as we can see that answers were bringing some clarification to those not so well informed, or simply willing to participate actively.

We should all encourage dialogue, and not war in this space.

Keep it factual, please

JC
Le 22 sept. 2014 à 04:09, Milton L Mueller a écrit :

>  
> >The ICG, in the RFP, has mandated that "proposals" are to come only from the three operational communities.
>  
> Not true. The processes are _convened_ by the operational communities, and need to be centered there because of their direct use of the IANA functions, but the processes are _required_ to be open.
>  
> >The ICG has also proposed that any "comments" sent to the ICG by individuals (not belonging to any of the three >communities) will be forwarded to the operational communities for consideration.
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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
>  
> >The rationale for excluding individuals from sending proposals is that the processes initiated by the three >operational communities will be inclusive and open to participation by all.
>  
> 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.
>  
> >The opposition to this by ALAC was rejected outright by the remaining members of the ICG
> > in the 3rd conference call.
>  
> False, all of the amendments and clarifications sought by ALAC and by NCUC were incorporated into the RFP.
> You are either lying or you did not listen to the conference call.
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140922/c5fff414/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t