[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] OT Re: An important technical consideration about nature of the service (was Re: The overflowing list )

[Sivasubramanian M]

Then why is there an inclination to move away from this policy topic? And
why is there a total absence of protest on this being characterized as a
"waste of time"?

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> Correct.  Note that this is the GNSO RDS PDP WG.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Hollenbeck, Scott
> *Sent:* Monday, July 25, 2016 11:23 AM
> *To:* Sivasubramanian M
> *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] OT Re: An important technical
> consideration about nature of the service (was Re: The overflowing list )
>
>
>
> *From:* isolatedn at gmail.com [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com
> <isolatedn at gmail.com>] *On Behalf Of *Sivasubramanian M
> *Sent:* Monday, July 25, 2016 11:22 AM
> *To:* Hollenbeck, Scott
> *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] OT Re: An important technical
> consideration about nature of the service (was Re: The overflowing list )
>
>
>
> Who are the policy makers in the multi-stakeholder framework?  Why not
> ICANN pay attention, at least to facilitate discussion on  this topic?
>
>
>
> I think that’s what we’re doing here…
>
>
>
> Scott
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160725/c12d50a9/attachment.html>