kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sat May 2 11:53:09 UTC 2015
Dear El Bashir
While I note that apparently there is a dispute between ICAAN staff ( I have no official information describing the situation from both sides of the dispute rather a unilateral narrative statement from one side),my clear question to the chair is under what provision if ICG charter we are pushed to intervene as arbiter, judge, reviewer, mediator between ICANN staff functioning under the ICANN Board and certain operational communities for an operational dispute?
We should not interfere with internal negotiation between these entities.
It is outside our mandate.
Once again I strongly oppose for such an intervention.
If some people pushed by OCs to use the ICG authorities to do so they could act individually or jointly without using the ICG brand
Pls kindly do not involve the entire ICG in this affair
Sent from my iPhone
> On 2 May 2015, at 13:32, Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir at mbash.net> wrote:
> The issue of public statement regarding OC contracting negotiations with ICANN has not been discussed collectively between the chairs, that being said I share Alissa/Partik concerns of the actions of ICANN legal staff attempt to change the community consensus outcome and wither these actions are based on a board/management direction or the staff were are acting solely without instructions.
> The issue is already public now, an ICG of public statement on the process openness is good. But I think Narelle approach is much better, the ICG can officially communicate these concerns to ICANN Board/Management through the chair and request an official explanation.
> Previously ICG stressed the importance of the process transparency and openness, as a result we have got ICANN board assurance regarding the proposal submission when this process was Unclear.
> ICG-ICANN Board/Management communication is expected to enable us to a clear response on what happened and ICANN position as well .
> Kind Regards,
>> On 2 May 2015, at 13:56, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tks again
>> 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
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg