apb at cequrux.com
Mon May 4 08:56:14 UTC 2015
On Sun, 03 May 2015, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> There seem to be roughly three schools of thought on this within
> the ICG:
> (1) We should say nothing as a group, or I as chair should
> forward queries to ICANN if we receive them from any operational
> (2) We should query the ICANN board and/or staff about reports
> we’ve seen concerning recent negotiations, seek clarification,
> and re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led
> (3) We should re-iterate our position about transparent,
> community-led processes without direct reference to reports
> about recent negotiations.
> (2) and (3) are at odds with each other, however, since
> the former would require acknowledging recent reports and
> specifically asking about them, and the latter would require us
> to avoid referencing those same reports.
I think that (2) and (3) are not incompatible. Indeed, your
suggestion in the next paragrah seems to combine them, first
issuing a neutral statement as in (3), and then a specific question
as in (2).
> My suggestion for a middle ground is for us to issue a neutral
> statement that re-iterates our position (a la (3)) and then
> forward that statement to the ICANN board and staff with a
> further query. I’ve taken a shot at drafting both of those
> pieces below. I’ve edited the statement to try to make it more
> neutral. Feedback is of course welcome.
I support this course of action, and your proposed text (quoted below).
--apb (Alan Barrett)
> Proposed statement and note:
> Dear <insert appropriate ICANN recipient(s) here>,
> The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition
> process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the
> statement below. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with
> provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts
> or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be
> made public.
> Thanks, The ICG
> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements
> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship
> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun
> discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements
> called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG
> expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition
> process -- that all interested parties express their opinions
> about the transition proposals openly and transparently
> within the community processes. This includes opinions about
> the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with
> contracts or other agreements between the communities and the
> IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the
> opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the
> community processes as early as possible.
More information about the Internal-cg