Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Wed Apr 29 18:23:36 UTC 2015
Again, it’s a process issue, we are making a statement about how the bottom up transition process should work.
We are not acting on behalf of protocol or numbers communities. It’s just that because those two communities have already turned in their proposal (which names has not) they are the first to discover the process problems. If names had turned in their proposal first and had encountered these problems I am sure we would be proposing the same thing.
I am having trouble understanding your resistance to this.
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 2:00 PM
To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting
Dear Wolf, Please kindly read my comments .I agree with the issue burt I have difficulties to accept why ICG becomes spokeman of the Two Communities while the draft is on commenting period and every one including those two communities may raise any concerns but not in the name of ICG.
We are not caretaker of Protocol and numbers commujnities.
Such mission is not given in our charetr to us.
We should remain neuteral visd a vis all three communities and not as an altering entity for any communities.
They are expert, matured and well informed.
We have not recieved any thing from CWG .
2015-04-29 18:59 GMT+02:00 Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wuknoben at gmail.com<mailto:wuknoben at gmail.com>>:
I also agree to Alissa's draft. I wonder whether it shouldn't read "...including ICANN staff and board..."
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg