kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sat May 2 10:56:47 UTC 2015
If someone insist to send that nite
It should indicate that it reflects the views of chair and SOME ICG members but NOT the ICG as a whole since we did not debate it at alll .
Sent from my iPhone
> On 1 May 2015, at 16:36, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> I like your proposed query. I think it actually supplements what Alissa and Patrik were proposing and I believe we should do both.
> Patrik said (with apparent agreement of Alissa) that they are "required to point out publicly (again) that _everyone_ must use the processes the OCs define for bottom-up multistakeholder participation."
> This is a very general reminder/admonition that is not directed at any particular party.
> Your query goes to a very specific party - the ICANN board - and addresses specific concerns that have arisen in the past week. Hence, I would support doing both. For convenience of others I reproduce it here with one proposed edit of mine:
>> "The ICG has become aware of claims that critical pieces of the IETF
>> and RIR proposals for IANA operation post NTIA stewardship are being
>> contested by ICANN's legal counsel. The ICG therefore seeks
>> clarification of these reports, and specifically to the extent which they
>> are acting under instructions of ICANN."
> I deleted the phrase "through negotiation of the terms of the existing SLA and proposed models." By doing so, I think we can avoid quibbling over whether what has happened constitutes "negotiation" and focus on the more relevant issue, which is whether ICANN legal or someone else is pushing back against the proposal outside of the OC process.
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
More information about the Internal-cg