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-Ekiti
web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng

The key to understanding is humility - my view !