[CWG-Stewardship] On draft reply to SSAC
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Aug 6 12:45:40 UTC 2015
As the drafter of the section on the standing
committee, I can live with either formulation. I
don't think there is much chance of one of those
groups not participating given the potential
risks. So I leave it up to the co-chairs to select.
Andrew, I presume you meant item 3.C, not B.
Alan
At 05/08/2015 01:50 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>Hi, In the item 3.b. question 2 draft response,
>it isn't clear to me how the first sentence
>responds to the question. It seems to me that
>the answer can start with "Since the standing
>committee makes recommendations
," contiinuing
>to the end. (This has the happy consequence
>also of removing the proposed make up of the
>committee from consideration. If any of those
>bodies were to decline the invitation to
>participate that premise would be weaker. But
>if we can just discard the premise in the
>argument without harm, then we might as well do
>so.) A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list