<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Milton,<br>
<br>
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. <br>
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.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/11/2014 13:27, Milton Mueller
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1DDA7038-F770-4C21-9208-FBD6D7262600@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div>Olivier: </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. <br>
<br>
Milton L Mueller
<div>Professor, <span style="font-size: 13pt;">Syracuse School
of Information Studies</span></div>
</div>
<div><br>
On Nov 24, 2014, at 04:47, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">ocl@gih.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
Dear Guru,<br>
<br>
I'll let our Chairs decide on whether there was consensus or
no consensus, bearing in mind consensus is not unanimity.<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/11/2014 10:35, Guru Acharya
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEEwkf70HHtw3pkGXSsO=kgP_0Byd-3SxEfgmyeOjK-coLj65g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Olivier,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't agree that consensus was found on Option 2.</div>
<div>Malcolm and Matthew strongly objected to Option 2 as
reflected in the transcripts.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please read <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49363373/MeetingF2F_Session3_20Nov.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1416525744000&api=v2">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49363373/MeetingF2F_Session3_20Nov.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1416525744000&api=v2</a></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:50 PM,
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
<span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" target="_blank">ocl@gih.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dear Avri,<br>
Dear Milton,<br>
<span class=""><br>
On 24/11/2014 05:11, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
> 1. Strong separability: every n (n= 2-7?) years
a new RFP is released<br>
> and all comers, current contract holder
included, apply for the IANA<br>
> contract and the best candidate is picked.<br>
><br>
> 2. Weak seperability: every n (n=2-7?) years a
review of the current<br>
> contract holder is reviewed and the review
committee has the option to<br>
> put out an RFP for the IANA contract if there
are unresolved issues.<br>
<br>
</span>What I heard at the face to face meeting is
that the directly affected<br>
customers were looking for operational stability and
therefore preferred<br>
option 2. My understanding was that consensus was
found at 2 rather than 1.<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Cwg-rfp3 mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Cwg-rfp3@icann.org">Cwg-rfp3@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>