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 <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