Looks OK to me. But given how anything ICANN even suggests to the ccNSO that isn't purely procedural (ie, the FOI) is met with out-of-your-jurisdiction fury in response (see the lengthy response to a single line of the R3 white paper as but one example), I really wonder whether the ccTLD component of this (both the statement and the response) is more than wishful thinking - Evan On 19 March 2013 15:02, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Cheryl and I were asked to put together a statement in responce to the IANA ccTLG delegation/redelagation consultation ( https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg<https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg>) and the similar one for gTLDs (https://community.icann.org/**x/CgFlAg<https://community.icann.org/x/CgFlAg> ).
Unfortunately, due to other commitments, it is just now that the statement is ready and can be found on the ccTLD consulation page ( https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg<https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg> ).
The statement must be submitted by the end of Wednesday, so I am guessing that it will be submitted just prior to a vote beginning. Therefore it is essential that any comments on this statement be submitted very quickly.
I am also attaching a copy of the proposed statement for your convenience.
I will leave it to Olivier to decide on the exact process to be followed.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56