[IOT] Any further thoughts?
robin at ipjustice.org
Fri Mar 29 22:05:57 UTC 2019
Thanks for the reminder on this pending matter, David.
I agree with Malcolm and believe it is critical that the decision be made by the SOs and ACs (rather than ICANN, the private corporation) because this entire effort is predicated upon increasingly accountability to the community on the part of the corporation. We shouldn’t stray from that now and back track on the progress that we have made so far in this CCWG.
Also, I thought we had agreed for Malcolm and David to draft the letter to the SOs and ACs to begin to move this process forward. I suggest we continue on that path and get the community input that was requested a number of months ago now and I’m not sure why it hasn’t happened yet. Thank you.
> On Mar 28, 2019, at 2:31 PM, McAuley, David via IOT <iot at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear members of the IRP IOT:
> Several weeks ago I posted a suggested approach <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/2019-March/000489.html> to Malcolm’s challenge and in turn Malcolm posted a separate approach in two emails, here <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/2019-March/000490.html>, and here <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/2019-March/000492.html>.
> Are there any other thoughts on this?, if so please post on list.
> Both Bernie and I will be away – I am out until April 5th and Bernie will likely be away for several days. Can anyone wanting to weigh in on the challenge issue specifically please do so by Monday, April 8.
> Thank you,
> David McAuley
> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
> Verisign Inc.
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org <mailto:IOT at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IOT