<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><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 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></body></html>