[governance] IANA Transition - Lack of Openess

[Seth Johnson]

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>>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.


Whatever else we might say at present, this setup will enable
questions regarding the role of the ITU in the broader context to be
placed within the frame of a dispute between ccTLDs that disagree with
aspects of ICANN's role, and an advocate community activated on
governance issues within the operational communities of ICANN.


Seth


>>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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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