[Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

[Lynn St.Amour]

Hi Patrik,

I would support sending such a letter to the CWG Stewardship.  Thank you for taking the initiative.

Best,
Lynn

PS. there are a few typos in the draft text below and I assume these will be cleaned up.

On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:26 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

> All,
> 
> Mr Richard Hill has submitted comments in our public forum. After contemplating the input I suggest we send a question to the CWG Stewardship a request for clarification on two issues.
> 
> Feedback on the proposed note below is appreciated.
> 
>     Patrik Fältström
>     ICG Co-Chair
> 
> ==========================
> 
> Lise, Jonathan,
> 
> You might be aware of the input in the public comment forum of ICG from mr Richard Hill:
> 
> <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>
> 
> Specifically there are two claims:
> 
> 1:
> 
>> But it fails to state that the Final Proposal was not submitted for public
>> comment [...]
> 
> 2:
> 
>> Thus, while the Final Proposal represents the consensus of the
>> CWG-Stewardship itself, it does not necessarily represent the consensus of
>> the global multi-stakeholder community.
> 
> According to the process we use in ICG regarding comments like this (see attached document), ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we do make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC do have any input.
> 
> ICG would like to have a clarification on these two issues, and of course anything else that you find being interesting to comments on, and would like comments no later than [insert date 14 days after this is sent].
> 
>  [signed by Alissa]
> <Community Comments Handling-1May15-final.docx>_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org