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 email Best regards, Greg Shatan *Gregory 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 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> * *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/> * On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:45 AM, John Poole <jp1@expri.com> wrote:
*"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, 2015*
Dear Greg* et al:* I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply or response to my email yesterday concerning Legal Scoping Document (Version 3). Best regards, John Poole