Just for clarity as well, I was also responding to your comments below:
Farzaneh wrote:
"Yes . Really. I refer you to the meeting that was held on 2 September 2015. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56133316
I also refer you to the meeting with Board which was held in BA. Please read the transcript. You can see there is no outright rejection of a suggested model."
Certainly asking for transcript is from your comments above.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
Can I just clarify something here: asking for additional documents and advice that Board has received which relate to CCWG work does not one bit suggests that we are implying power grab. I find it quite outrageous that a simple request for some information that may be or may not be available leads to such wrong misinterpretation.Bruce, Thank you. Your assurance that the documents will be provided to the possible extent was what I needed. It's a part of informational justice. And thank you for being so responsive throughout.On 1 October 2015 at 10:18, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:Seun:
Overall I think we should recognise the process as a need for power Balance and not a power grab/shift
Wolfgang:
1++
--Farzaneh