joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Sat May 2 16:18:09 UTC 2015
I have been on travel and have not been able to follow these discussions as closely as I would like. One thought which would perhaps address the reluctance of some members related to the statements might be for an ICG statement to be neutral as to gossip and allegations as proposed, but to be issued specifically in response to community statements raising concerns about a constraint on openness and transparency related to proposals process. In this way we are responding to OC concerns raised to us related to process transparency and openness which are clearly part of our mandate...
Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> The problem we are trying to address is that negotiations and claims are being made out of public view, in an attempt to change the operational community proposals behind the scenes. ICG has the responsibility to uphold the openness and transparency of the process. Alissa proposed, and Patrik and I supported, a simple statement that discussions and negotiations about the merits of the proposals should be out in the open.
> It appears to me that you are unfamiliar with the problems that led to Alissa’s proposal. Before you suggest “no action” I suggest you spend some time reviewing slides 18-20 of the presentation made by members of the CRISP team at this link: (no need to read the whole thing) https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/PDF/monday/crisp_panel.pdf
> If you wish to intervene heavily in this discussion it is essential that you read that material first. Once you have read that, please tell me if you still think “no action” is needed.
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg