Thanks for the share Lise, though I had earlier indicated my personal support for large part of the statement (especially that of RySG). I will like to suggest to the chairs that the statement should not in anyway influence already planned agenda of the meeting. If possible, the cwg should avoid going through this document during the face 2 face (at least not for day 1). There is need to remain focused on the agenda so expected purpose/outcome of the meeting can be achieved. I believed we have learnt 1 or 2 things from last face 2 face. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 Mar 2015 15:34, "Lise Fuhr" <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> wrote:
Dear All,
As you may be aware, we received two substantive inputs from direct customers of the naming functions. In response to this, we asked staff to compare that input with the current output of the relevant Design Teams. You will find the results of that comparison attached.
We believe that this work may be a useful aid in our review of the Design Teams work during tomorrow’s meeting and accordingly we encourage you to review it beforehand.
Please do note that this is a draft, so should there be any information overlooked or inconsistencies, feel free to flag those.
Best,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship