[ga] BC Transparency?
In your comment to Marilyn you wrote: "Now you tricked the BC in including a
paragraph on Open Nets killing a good work, you probably feel better."
As the BC is a constituency that has chosen not to respect the ICANN
requirements of transparency and continues to operate on a non-archived
mailing list, we can only guess at the meaning of your words...
Are you implying that the Proposed BC position paper on evaluation of new
top-level domains (that included yet another attack on alternate roots) did
not follow proper process? As I recall, each such document if strongly
opposed by a number of BC members is to be first discussed in a constituency
conference call... and I am sure that you, Andy and Debbie strongly opposed
the language that was included. Are you implying that a conference call was
not held, and that minority opinions were disregarded?
I see no reference to a minority position in the BC position paper. For the
sake of transparency, perhaps you can tell us why a subject matter that was
formerly "beyond the scope of ICANN" (in the words of the NC) is now proposed
as an additional area of investigation for the TLD evaluation TF.
I apologize for putting the burden on you, but if BC officers actually cared
about transparency they would have archived their mailing list a long time
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html