<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>All,</div><div id="AppleMailSignature">in response to concerns raised by Greg and others: There is no intention whatsoever to prevent any individual or group from commenting. However, we would really like to encourage comment to be submitted in a concertated fashion via the Chartering Organizations. This will help avoid duplicate comments and will make comment analysis easier. Additionally, as was pointed out earlier approval from Chartering Organizations is critical in this phase. However, please note that we will proactively circle back to the Chartering Organizations as a CCWG in case public comment suggests that we need to make changes to our recommendations. Thus, the Chartering Organizations can be sure not to approve recommendations that are subject to change.<br><br>Best regards,</div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Mathieu, León and Thomas, <br><div><span style="font-size: 13pt;">---</span></div><div><a href="http://rickert.net">rickert.net</a></div><div><br></div></div><div><br>Am 03.12.2015 um 18:50 schrieb Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>>:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>Hi,</span><br><span></span><br><span>i believe that having made substantive changes to the plan, it had to go</span><br><span>out for another round of public comment. And i think it has to</span><br><span>continually go out for public comment as long as we are making</span><br><span>substnative changes.</span><br><span></span><br><span>I see no problem in getting the chartering members to consider the plan</span><br><span>before all the comments are in. While I would not expect any to make</span><br><span>final decisions before all the comments were in, having them consider</span><br><span>the plan, and possibly even comment as chartering organizations, seems a</span><br><span>useful exercise.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Of course, I also believe that any consideration must take the minority</span><br><span>dissenting views into account.</span><br><span></span><br><span>avri</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>On 03-Dec-15 09:45, Jonathan Zuck wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>I agree completely and according to our charter, we are at the point in our PROCESS where we take our proposal to the chartering organizations. It is only weak mindedness on our part that has led to any public comment at this juncture and we run the risk of letting the tail wag the dog, so to speak, thereby derailing our PROCESS.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>-----Original Message-----</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 2:07 AM</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>To: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Cc: <a href="mailto:directors@omadhina.net">directors@omadhina.net</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Process matters.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>el</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On 2015-12-03 06:20, Jonathan Zuck wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>It is simply the case that at SOME point this is supposed to go to the </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>chartering orgs as they are the ultimate decision makers. The HUGE </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>majority of public comments come from WITHIN this community. Either we </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>are able to operate as a community or we are not. Continuously </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>throwing the same arguments over the transom because we feel like we </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>get a better platform than we do working within the community has </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>stopped entirely from being productive. I'm having the same argument </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>inside the IPC, by the way. The primary use of public comments should </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>be to generate new ideas not create ONE MORE round of repetitive </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>comments that require the attention of the CCWG (for responding to </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>which you go on to criticize the CCWG, of course, if they aren't </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>comments YOU feel are important). At this point, additional public </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>comments from within the community only serve to make people feel more </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>important than they are within that community. Now is the time to </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>lobby within the GNSO to see changes you still want made and to </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>compromise if you fail. Anything else is simply intellectual...er, </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>gymnastics... and to defend it in the name of process is disingenuous at best.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Frankly, I'd like to see these measures actually go into effect. I'd </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>like to stop the incredible mission creep we're getting at the end of </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>this process because folks feel like they have leverage. If everyone </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>is so concerned that WS2 isn't going to happen then we have simply </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>failed at WS1 as that was the whole point: to put the community in </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>charge of their own destiny in terms of reform...not to get every pet </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>issue handled in WS1. And yes, the timeline probably DOES matter </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>politically in the US. We can't let this go on forever. There isn't </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>going to be a version of this with which everyone is completely happy </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>so at some point, we need to go to the chartering orgs and see if they can live with it.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>There really shouldn't be ANY public comment at this point but process </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>demands we leave a window open for those who are unrepresented. I </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>don't need to read another public comment from within the community </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>and do a whole new spreadsheet treating it on equal footing with the GNSO. It ain't.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>So, to be specific I think there's a danger of letting this drag on </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>much longer in terms of the politics in DC. I also see very little </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>upside to holding an entire public comment period prior to getting </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>feedback from the chartering orgs. As such it's hard to compare the </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>pros and cons here but we have heard from he public and a fairly </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>significant way and gone a long way to address the concerns that have </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>been raised. It ain't perfect and it's not going to be. That said, if </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>we've done our job right, we have the ability to continue to reform </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>the organization regardless of the makeup of the board and the </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>responsibility will fall on the community to do so.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>J</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>*From:*<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>[<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] *On Behalf </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Of *Mueller, Milton L</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>*Sent:* Wednesday, December 2, 2015 7:23 PM</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>*To:* Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>>; </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>CCWG-Accountability Proposal</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Steve:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Your arguments make no sense. You say because we _/can/_ voice some </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>views that will, possibly (and possibly not), diffuse into our own </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>chartering org in a couple of weeks that we therefore _/should/_ do it </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>this way. In other words, it is clear that your only concern is to </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>compress the timeline. You have not provided a single reason why this </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>needs to be done and what will be gained or lost if we don't do it </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>that way.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I am sick of this kind of argumentation. Attempts to compress the </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>timeline at the expense of the accuracy, thoroughness and legitimacy </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>of the process have been criticized by virtually everyone except for </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>the handful of people, like you, who are responsible for foisting this </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>procedure on us.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Are you going to change this or do you want me, and about a dozen </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>other people, to start directly attacking the legitimacy of your process?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>--MM</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>*From:*<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>[<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] *On Behalf </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Of *Steve DelBianco</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>*Sent:* Wednesday, December 2, 2015 2:30 PM</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>*To:* <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>CCWG-Accountability Proposal</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I don't support Nigel and Milton's view that we need to finish the </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>public comment before asking chartering orgs about their positions.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>As our CCWG charter requires, we are now asking chartering orgs </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>whether they support CCWG recommendations. Anyone who is part of a </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>chartering org (for example, Milton and I are part of GNSO), can voice </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>their views and concerns within their chartering org to influence the chartering</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>organization's position. </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Any individual, whether or not they are pat of a chartering org, could </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>broadcast their concerns about the CCWG proposal so that could be </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>considered by chartering orgs in their internal deliberations.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>For all these reasons, let's continue to focus efforts on </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>understanding concerns and questions raised by our chartering orgs, </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>according to their own internal procedures and timelines.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>*From: *<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>>> on behalf </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>of Nigel Roberts <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a> </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">mailto:nigel@channelisles.net</a>>></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>*Date: *Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:55 PM</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>*To: *"<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>"</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>*Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>CCWG-Accountability Proposal</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I totally agree.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>How can the SOs make any reasonsed decision without having the </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>necessity</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>of taking into account the submitted comments when the comment period</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>has closed.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>And I shall say so, in the ccNSO.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>On 12/02/2015 06:46 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> We should have a complete and open public comment period, and then </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>allow</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> the chartering orgs to make up their mind. To my mind, that should </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>be</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> sequential rather than simultaneous, otherwise doubts could be </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>raised</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span> about whether the public comment is meaningful.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>---</span><br><span>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.</span><br><span><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>