From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat Dec 5 21:20:46 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 22:20:46 +0100 Subject: [Area 2] [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <697FD021-D574-4344-B2C5-450F2408B6AD@ipjustice.org> <565FF829.4070607@lisse.NA> <4EECCC44-1EAE-4900-A277-137F0105830D@gmail.com> <5855BFE1-C1EC-4AB3-8ED2-8EEAF398DD9A@lisse.na> <7BA242F5-7B97-4D41-8DB3-CCCBF3B9DCF8@gmail.com> <54BDA1B4-8491-4434-845E-6857F03ACCDD@lisse.na> Message-ID: Dear Co-Chair, About 56 message exchanged among CCWG on the issue of the sequence of actions relation who should comment before who? The position of Co-Chairs as responsible for the conduct of the discussion IS NOW URGENTLY required. There are pros and cones. The major deciding element is time Should we wait until public comment period is expired the we formally ask the SIX CHARTERING ORGANIZATION TO COMMENT? However, any member of chartering oerganization uindividually or collectively could comment during this period BUT perhapsd at the end of the period once the results of publ?ic comments are available we could formal?ly ask the SIX chartering organization to cooment on each recommenadstion. The advantage of that would be the chartering organization would need to take into account the public comment as a guidance or as background information. We may loose one or two weeks but itworths to do so. PLEASE KINDLY AND EURGENTLY CONSIDER THE MATTER and if required organize a confrence call within a week Regards Kavouss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: