[Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
WUKnoben
wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Wed Jul 8 03:41:13 UTC 2015
I agree to the letter
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Manal Ismail
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 2:32 AM
To: Lynn St.Amour ; Patrik Fältström
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
Thanks Patrik ..
I also support sending the below letter ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn
St.Amour
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 4:25 PM
To: Patrik Fältström
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill
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
_______________________________________________
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
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list