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