[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue

Stephen Deerhake sdeerhake at nic.as
Mon Feb 29 23:12:53 UTC 2016


+1 Nigel.

It's either finaized or not.  The co-chair states that it is finalized.  So
why the continuing discussion?
/Stephen

-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel
Roberts
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.
>
> Thomas
>
>
>> 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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list