kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Apr 27 15:50:05 UTC 2015
Your explanation is unclear.
Your position is confusing
Sent from my iPhone
> On 27 Apr 2015, at 06:57, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2015, at 22:33, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of the same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out a statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes? And that includes opinions about the acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with contractual arrangements between the communities and the IANA functions operator?
> I would support such a clarification from ICG.
> Any views on proposed changes, regardless of who is having a view, regardless on in what role that individual is expressing the view, must be brought to the OCs. There is no other avenue for requests. And yes, this include staff or individuals that by any means have direct, economical or otherwise connections with the operational communities. Bottom up and transparent processes are what we use here.
> And yes, this might be specifically important to say for ICANN staff as they otherwise are excluded from participation in the PDP that might affect their own operation.
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
More information about the Internal-cg