Arun,

I agree with comments of other colleagues, including those from Denmark.

Also this sentence:

"Given that Stress Test 18 constrains the GAC, it has got governments up in arms and threatens to stall the IANA transition altogether."

does not reflect the present situation, as my colleague Jorge from Suitzerland has correctly pointed out.

So I suggest you include in your blog also an objective analysis of the GAC communique from Dublin.

Regards

Olga Cavalli
GAC Vicechair
Argentina

2015-10-27 14:31 GMT-03:00 Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>:
Thanks Greg - I would need to link to an e-mail intervention from DK or GAC meeting transcripts (when Dublin ones are out) to make this correction. Saying this post the article's publication is not quite the same.

Best,

-- 
Head, Cyber Initiative
Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
+91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Arun,

I just read the email you referred to.  It does not support the proposition that Stress Test 18 is unacceptable to Denmark, or even that Denmark has a position on Stress Test 18.  It is a fairly nuanced and non-dispositive email, contributing to the overall discourse at the time it was written.  Furthermore, it was written 3 March 2015, which in "CCWG time" is several millennia ago -- a further reason not to rely on it as a statement of "position" in late October.

I suggest that you do not need to wait for further instructions from Denmark in order to correct your piece, especially since Denmark has already told you in no uncertain terms that "your statement concerning Denmark is wrong!!!!"

I look forward to reading the revised version of your article.

Best regards,

Greg Shatan

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org> wrote:
Hi Finn, this is what I went by: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/2015-March/000071.html

If the Danish position has changed, happy to correct.

Best,

-- 
Head, Cyber Initiative
Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk> wrote:
Dear Arun,

Thoughts - here is one!

You write "Several countries, notably Brazil, Spain, Denmark and Argentina, see the proposed modification as unacceptable."

Why did you include Denmark in the group of countries that oppose ST18  - your statement concerning Denmark is wrong!!!!

Please correct this.

Best,

Finn, GAC - Dk

Sendt fra min iPad

Den 27. okt. 2015 kl. 17.42 skrev "arun.sukumar@orfonline.org" <arun.sukumar@orfonline.org>:

CCWGers, plugging here a post I wrote on discussions around Stress Test 18. 

Thoughts welcome!

Best,
Arun

Sent from my iPad
 
Head, Cyber Initiative
Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
Ph: +91-9871943272 
_______________________________________________
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




_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community