Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available

Hi

>  Do you read it differently?

Yes.  I read it as saying the while comments can be accepted by all,
outputs/proposals seem to only come from the 3 designated operational
actors, each restricted to their assigned topic.

I.e. first there are proposals from the 3 operational assignees on their
assigned topic

then there is broader input on the transition proposal

avri

On 21-Jul-14 12:08, John Curran wrote:
> On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> I have no problem with the notion of an expectation that mostly
>> parameters will be covered by IETF and names by GNSO and the ccNSO, and
>> numbers by the NRO.  What I have problems with is the construction of
>> silo walls that indicate an expectation that others might not have
>> standing and ability to contribute to the proposed solutions on
>> particular subjects.
> 
> Avri - 
> 
> Since the ICG charter specifically states that everyone's input is to be 
> welcome across all topics, I'm not certain how anyone's contribution could 
> be excluded for a lack of "standing"...  From how I read the process, any
> such input will be considered by the ICG, and potentially provided back to 
> the appropriate operational community for consideration; this is regardless 
> of its origin.  (Of course, that's just my take based on the charter just 
> published, I am not in London/Toronto nor part of the ICG.)
> 
> Do you read it differently?
> /John
> 
> Disclaimer:  My views alone - no IANA accountability mechanisms are proposed
>              by way of this email.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internetgovtech mailing list
> Internetgovtech@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech
> 
> 