[CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 10:14:19PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>  I would agree with you that the requirements in '1150 (sections 2
> and 3)' need to be met but the fact that the CWG proposal identified
> them doesn't mean that the CWG is the best entity to meet them.  In
> fact, because of the unique nature of this situation, this might be
> a problem better solved by the ICG in its role.

The ICG has been painfully clear that it will not solve problems
itself.  Those problems are to be solved in the affected communities.
I think this is an excellent principle, because if we're really
supposed to be multi-stakeholder then the problems need to be resolved
closest to the communities affected.  The names community is the
operational community affected by the root zone arrangements.  So any
policy questions ought to be hashed out here, not elsewhere.

I have no opinon on whether the text we have is adequate, but I
support strongly the position that this WG and nowhere else is where
the decision of adequacy needs to be reached.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com