We are trying to follow our work plan.  There is no intent to avoid policy topics but rather to wait until we get to them in our work plan so that we don’t have to repeat discussions and hence waste time.

Chuck

From: isolatedn@gmail.com [mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 11:27 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] OT Re: An important technical consideration about nature of the service (was Re: The overflowing list )

Then why is there an inclination to move away from this policy topic? And why is there a total absence of protest on this being characterized as a "waste of time"?

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

Correct.  Note that this is the GNSO RDS PDP WG.

Chuck

From: Hollenbeck, Scott
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 11:23 AM
To: Sivasubramanian M
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] OT Re: An important technical consideration about nature of the service (was Re: The overflowing list )

From: isolatedn@gmail.com [mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] OT Re: An important technical consideration about nature of the service (was Re: The overflowing list )

Who are the policy makers in the multi-stakeholder framework?  Why not ICANN pay attention, at least to facilitate discussion on  this topic?

I think that’s what we’re doing here…

Scott