Sender: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:19:14 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=UTF-8 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi,
Adma's note seems to be reasonable.
5/30 is way down from half, their normal portion of Ig seats, and if
that will allow them to accept and support the transition process, I do
not see it as harm.
I hope the CG remains a non-voting group. But even if they don't, it is
not a controlling vote.
As for scope, I think it should remain broad enough to cover all of the
IANA transition related issues that have been discussed in the lead up
to seating the CG.
For example, I think the scope has to include the discussion of how the
links to the transparency process are set? What are the milestone
dependencies? And I think it needs to include the question of whether
all the accountability in the world by ICANN can replace the explicit
oversight of an authority that can grant/deny a contract or contract
renewal. And if not, then what would be the appropriate equivalent
mechanism post transition.
avri
On 12-Jul-14 17:40, Carlos Raúl G. wrote:
> +1
>
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> +506 8335 2487
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>
> El 12/07/2014, a las 14:40, Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> escribió:
>
>> Five.
>>
>> Multistakeholder: five from 20 plus. Obvious, no?
>>
>> And if that doesn't make sense, then it's also politically expedient,
>> two not workable for govt. We want this process to work give them what
>> they ask. (Less than 20%, so really doesn't matter.)
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
|
|
|