<div dir="ltr"><div>Daniel,</div><div>Others</div><div>I do not think that we could or need to interprete what is " inclussiveness" </div><div>This is a term used by ICANN, USG and others to claim that nobody is excluded.</div><div>Now we want to interprete what does it means</div><div>?</div><div>Let us not get into a new round of unnecessary discussion .$</div><div>I fully agree with Milton Analysis</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-02-02 9:15 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net" target="_blank">daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 2.02.15 3:41 , Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<br>
... I think the IETF process was very open but struggled with inclusiveness. There is a distinction between the two. ...<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Openness is much easier to judge objectively than inclusiveness.<br>
<br>
Inclusiveness is a very subjective concept. It is not uncommon for lack of effort to participate by some group to be 'justified' by lack of inclusiveness by a community.<br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
someone who supports quite successful bottom-up community processes for a living<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<u></u>listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>