<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Milton,<br>
<br>
thanks for your kind reply. I have replied separately to Becky but
I'll also reply here.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/10/2014 19:00, Milton L Mueller
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:ecb1f0e43ff241d3a4cf01a72dfa11c1@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">What
I suspect is happening is that both of you are confusing policy
development functions of ICANN with the operational and
technical functions of IANA, and applying inappropriate mental
models drawn from the former to the latter. In policy
development we want “</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">openness,
diversity, inclusiveness and the user perspective.” </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">In the DNS IANA functions the users
are the registries, it’s an intermediate good, it’s all about
implementation, so we want efficiency, security and direct
accountability to the primary users, not some playground for
different stakeholders to voice their opinions.</span></span></blockquote>
<br>
I am not confusing policy development with operational &
technical functions of IANA.<br>
All I am saying is that end users should be afforded space on the
Council or Body, if representative(s) from the GAC are to be also
considered. I fail to understand the apparent uproar that this
suggestion is generating.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
</body>
</html>