[ga] BC Transparency?

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Dear Jefsey,

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 
ago.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html