FWIW, I like to add my +1 on this request. I don't think it's anyway helpful that this process is "somewhat" put on suspense as a result of the delay in getting feedback from some SO/AC. I think there was a time it was said that GNSO was going to be providing its response by 14th of this month but this is 22nd, I don't even know when GAC's feedback will come (considering their high level statement indicated there is another coming). While i understand the challenge in getting around the consensus building processes within each SO/AC, I think this particular instance needs to be treated with more prudence and urgency as already exhibited by SO/AC that committed their feedback promptly. Others should make such effort count by acting up as well. Regards On 22 Jan 2016 4:51 p.m., "Oscar A. Robles-Garay" <oscar@lacnic.net> wrote:
Dear Leon, Mathieu and Thomas,
The Address Supporting Organization(ASO) would like to thank the CCWG Co-Chairs for your continued commitments in leading the group to complete the proposal.
We would like to express our comment on the discussions at the CCWG Call #79 on 21th Jan about the timelines. Given the time for pending decisions and actions are becoming shorter we strongly request the CCWG to have clear visibility on the extended timelines, because we believe the success of this process will rely on that clarity.
Specifically, the ASO requests the CCWG Chairs to set a clear date to receive feedback from the remaining SO and AC, so that the updated timelines can be developed and shared in a timely manner.
Thank you once again for your hard work and efforts. We trust that with your leadership, we are very close to the end of the process.
Oscar Robles Chair, NRO EC
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community