John,Thanks for your follow-up. I assure you that I (and others) have read (more than once) your email yesterday, and considered it as well. I have also brought up with our chairs the best ways to re-integrate this option into both our legal advice and into our work. A response is forthcoming. It's been only 24 hours since you sent your email....A lack of a reply does not signify a lack of interest or a lack of courtesy -- just a too-long queue of emails to respond to, and the thought-provoking ones take longer to respond to substantively. I'll respond substantively in a reply to that email (just to keep all the linkages as straight as possible).But I will assure you here that this is absolutely a process fully aligned with Larry Strickling's point quoted in your emailBest regards,Greg ShatanGregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab
Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet
666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621
Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:45 AM, John Poole <jp1@expri.com> wrote:John PooleBest regards,I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply or response to my email yesterday concerning Legal Scoping Document (Version 3)."We support a process where all ideas are welcome and where participants are able to test fully all transition options."--Larry Strickling, NTIA, January 27, 2015Dear Greg et al: