Just like I told Nigel offlist, I don't really care if it ups the ante or not. The point (re: "thank goodness") is that sending it to ICANN at this point puts ICANN in an unnecessary situation as ICANN has carried out the task assigned to her (by convening the MS community and delivering the proposals to NTIA).
The ball is now in the court of the USA, if the senators achieve his/her aim through that letter then it would be that USA made the decision to stall the transition process themselves (which implies failing on their own commitment). That is the distinction that I wanted to make.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
Well, that's an honor I neither expected nor asked for. But thanks, I guess....I agree with Nigel -- sending this to the head of the Commerce Department (Secretary Pritzker, a member of President Obama's cabinet) ups the ante. A letter to ICANN is an extragovernmental communication. This is a communication to the Executive Branch from members of the Legislative Branch.GregOn Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:I don't think 'thank goodness' is the right reaction.
I read that as upping the ante.
On 20/05/16 15:59, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
well and thank goodness that the letter was not addressed to ICANN this
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community