<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Perhaps on point one it might be useful to note that the process was
open and with a number of public consultations, then go on to say
that adding an additional consultation for the final document is a
needless exercise for reasons stated?<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/9/2015 2:30 PM, Alissa Cooper
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1A9B749C-6A39-4A37-B9EC-68B1145C38B9@cooperw.in"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>Draft letter text is below for your perusal.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Dear CWG,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html">http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html</a>>.
We would welcome your comments on any of Richards claims, but
we have a question about one specific claim below. We have
included our views on his other claims for your information.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="widows: 1;">Regarding his claim about the final
proposal not having gone out for public comment, in our view
what he suggests could yield a process that never ends, given
that further comments can always be provided whenever a
document is put out for public comment. Thus requiring a
final document to be put out for public comment is an
unreasonable requirement for a process intended to terminate.</div>
<div style="widows: 1;"><br>
</div>
<div style="widows: 1;">Regarding his claim about the global
multistakeholder community, our understanding of the CWGs
charter is that the group is open to any interested
participant.</div>
<div><span style="widows: 1;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="widows: 1;">Regarding his claim about his
specific comments on the proposal, we note that the CWG
proposal states on p. 51 that "The final proposal has
received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship with
no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering
Organization consideration. We note</span><span
style="widows: 1;">that rationales were given and CWG
consensus positions explained for each comment received
during the public comment period that was not included in
the proposal (including Richards). In light of both the
statement of consensus in the proposal and the disposition
of Richards comments in the public comment analysis tool,
we are writing to see if you have any further comment on
this claim.</span></div>
<div><span style="widows: 1;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="widows: 1;">A response would be appreciated by
<insert date here>.</span></div>
<div><span style="widows: 1;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="widows: 1;">Thanks,</span></div>
<div><span style="widows: 1;">Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG</span></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org">Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org">http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>