kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sat May 23 15:21:25 UTC 2015
What you want is just what you want.
I do not understand you and nor agreed that any ICG either co chairs or individual member impose his or het views to the entire ICG.
We need to have a coordinated and harmonised process which all ICs use in their reply.
I therefore support Joe, s views and disagree with your views.
There is no " I" in our process rather we all should agree
Sent from my iPhone
> On 23 May 2015, at 11:12, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> Do we need any semblance of coherence in how all communities interpret implementation to assure that their responses make sense when conjoined in our proposal?
>> On 5/23/2015 1:16 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>> On 23 May 2015, at 6:33, WUKnoben wrote:
>>> My suggestion is to be a little bit more formal meaning that the ICG letter should be addressed to the chairs of the three OCs since the ICG response to NTIA shall be formal, too.
>> Although I did say something different in an earlier response, I agree this can be a good alternative.
>> We as chairs of ICG got the letter, and then the chairs of the OCs can get whatever ICG send.
>> I just do not feel we ICG should push and force the OCs into some processes that are not needed. I want them to have as much freedom as possible to choose whatever process they want to use to be able to respond to the question.
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg