[Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

[Martin Boyle]

Yes, I'm fine with this.

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: 08 July 2015 04:41
To: Manal Ismail; Lynn St.Amour; Patrik Fältström
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

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 


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org