[CWG-Stewardship] On draft reply to SSAC

[Alan Greenberg]

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