[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
sdeerhake at nic.as
Mon Feb 29 23:12:53 UTC 2016
It's either finaized or not. The co-chair states that it is finalized. So
why the continuing discussion?
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 5:32 PM
To: Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
Cc: Accountability Cross Community
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
Then shouldn't we stop with the post facto relitigation?
Or as our American colleagues put it: "Monday morning quarterbacking".
On 29/02/16 21:58, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> Hi Nigel.
>> "Does the Draft Final Report that was transmitted to the COs several days
ago accurately represent the agreed work product of the CCWG?"
>> That question has a binary answer.
> The answer is yes.
>> It seems to me that discussion continues on further modifications or
amendment to it.
>> Is my understanding correct?
>> On 29/02/16 18:39, Salaets, Ken wrote:
>>> r now, perhaps the previous vote should be revisited.
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community