On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:27:03AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
There's no need to inject any other rationale than that, and in any case, we have no consensus rationale to inject.
Greg's remark there does seem to raise the question of what difference it makes what the rationale is. I think I don't understand what the controversy is: why should we care why the CWG came to its conclusion, given that the conclusion appears to work out?
+1 and this is why i have decided to agree as well; So long as adding/removing the rationale does not mean CWG is no longer agreeing with the proposal for a transfer of the IANA TM and domain from the current IFO then i am fine. Cheers!
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !