[CWG-RFP3] Seperabilty

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Dear Milton,

as I said, I decline having to make a judgement call whether there was
consensus or not and since this does not appear to have been clear, I
apologise for having been seen to be declaring consensus.
Others have confirmed there was a preference for 2. The face to face
meeting in Frankfurt was supposed to be making such decisions and in the
meantime the clock is ticking. As a result, I'd like to find out if
there was any consensus on any of the discussions we had. I think it was
a good meeting and I thought we had found consensus on some of the points.

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 24/11/2014 13:27, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Olivier: 
> Everyone knows that a face-to-face meeting where involving an
> arbitrary fraction of the people involved cannot be used as a basis
> for determining consensus. It always has to come back to the list. 
>
> No reasonable or fair person would think that there is consensus on
> this question at this point and therefore it's very disturbing that
> you're suggesting that there is. 
>
> Let me remind you that any attempt to arbitrarily declare consensus
> and then ram something through is simply not going to work,
> particularly since there are major checks and balances built into the
> process including the review by the ICG and a review by the US
> government.  It would undermine the legitimacy of the entire process,
> at a moment when legitimacy is absolutely essential to make this work. 
>
> At this stage you would do best to answer the arguments and the
> criticisms made and not try to get away with ignoring them by
> pretending that they don't have a significant amount of support. 
>
> Milton L Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse School of Information Studies
>
> On Nov 24, 2014, at 04:47, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com
> <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
>
>> Dear Guru,
>>
>> I'll let our Chairs decide on whether there was consensus or no
>> consensus, bearing in mind consensus is not unanimity.
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> On 24/11/2014 10:35, Guru Acharya wrote:
>>> Olivier,
>>>
>>> I don't agree that consensus was found on Option 2.
>>> Malcolm and Matthew strongly objected to Option 2 as reflected in
>>> the transcripts.
>>>
>>> Please
>>> read https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49363373/MeetingF2F_Session3_20Nov.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1416525744000&api=v2
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>>> <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Dear Avri,
>>>     Dear Milton,
>>>
>>>     On 24/11/2014 05:11, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>     > 1. Strong separability: every n (n= 2-7?) years a new RFP is
>>>     released
>>>     > and all comers, current contract holder included, apply for
>>>     the IANA
>>>     > contract and the best candidate is picked.
>>>     >
>>>     > 2. Weak seperability: every n (n=2-7?) years a review of the
>>>     current
>>>     > contract holder is reviewed and the review committee has the
>>>     option to
>>>     > put out an RFP for the IANA contract if there are unresolved
>>>     issues.
>>>
>>>     What I heard at the face to face meeting is that the directly
>>>     affected
>>>     customers were looking for operational stability and therefore
>>>     preferred
>>>     option 2. My understanding was that consensus was found at 2
>>>     rather than 1.
>>>     Kind regards,
>>>
>>>     Olivier
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
>>>     Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org <mailto:Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org>
>>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141124/e1ea6cc6/attachment.html>