[Internal-cg] Response to Richard Hill

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Aug 17 20:32:05 UTC 2015


Dear All,
I am surprised why everybody seems so satisfied and happy.
Richard is a knowledgeable person with strong background in internets issues.
He has a doctors in mathematic and had long experience in legal aspects of internet.
Kavouss    


Sent from my iPhone

> On 17 Aug 2015, at 05:49, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> Good response.
> 
>> On 13 Aug 2015, at 6:08, Russ Mundy wrote:
>> 
>> Alissa,
>> 
>> This response certainly sounds reasonable to me.  I did note a couple of grammatical/typo type nits that I’ve noted inline.
>> 
>> Russ M
>> 
>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> Here is a proposed response to this comment. What do you think?
>>> 
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> 
>>> Dear Richard,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for submitting your comments to the ICG. We note your view on the process for consensus in CWG Stewardship for the document produced.
>>> The ICG also notes that the CWG Stewardship has taken notice of your view as explained in email from Lise Fuhr that can be found here: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-August/004054.html>.
>>> 
>>> The ICG evaluation of how the CWG Stewardship process meets the NTIA requirements is in the ICG document that is out for open consultation as explained here: <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/>.
>>> 
>>> Regrading the specific question on what is the basis for ICG to evaluate comments addressed to the
>> 
>> Regarding
>> 
>>> operational communities, please have a look at section 2a in the ICG comments handling process <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Community-Comments-Handling-1May15-final.pdf>, which says "ICG in its discretion will raise the issues or question to the relevant OC with a request that they provide a timely and appropriate reply." This was exactly what ICG did.
>>> 
>>> In general the ICG had the ability at any time to make a statement as long as we fulfil our mandate and
>> 
>>                              has
>> 
>>> charter. Furthermore, the original comments posted in the ICG Forum were not addressed to the CWG Stewardship but instead addressed to the ICG, and because of that the ICG did take action.
>>> 
>>> Kind Regards,
>>> 
>>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:00 AM, Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> 
>>>> The following comment has been posted to the ICG Forum today:
>>>> 
>>>> 7 August – “Comment on handling of my previous comment on the CWG-Stewardship proposal” from Richard Hill.
>>>> 
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-August/000003.html
>>>> 
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Jennifer
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
> http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org



More information about the Internal-cg mailing list