[Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

Manal Ismail manal at tra.gov.eg
Sun Jul 12 12:32:09 UTC 2015


Fine with me too, including Joe's suggestion ..
Just one remark, can we replace 'claim' with some other word? Maybe 'point'?

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 10:34 PM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Assessment of input from Richard Hill

Perhaps on point one it might be useful to note that the process was open and with a number of public consultations, then go on to say that adding an additional consultation for the final document is a needless exercise for reasons stated?
On 7/9/2015 2:30 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Draft letter text is below for your perusal.

-

Dear CWG,

The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html>. We would welcome your comments on any of Richard's claims, but we have a question about one specific claim below. We have included our views on his other claims for your information.

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.

Regarding his claim about the global multistakeholder community, our understanding of the CWG's charter is that the group is open to any interested participant.


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 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 Richard's). In light of both the statement of consensus in the proposal and the disposition of Richard's comments in the public comment analysis tool, we are writing to see if you have any further comment on this claim.


A response would be appreciated by <insert date here>.


Thanks,
Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG





_______________________________________________

Internal-cg mailing list

Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>

http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150712/6da60bc2/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list