Hi Just as yesterday, I support this approach. I just have one observation about the text of the motion - It lists candidates first in (surname) alphabetical order and then in ranking order. It would be clearer if the top 4 were also on ranking order. Thanks Renata On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Julf. I know that several of you expressed support for the approach on the way forward yesterday, but I just want to make sure that the proposed changes to the motion meet everyone’s expectations with regards to what was discussed. In addition, we especially need to hear from those of you that were not able to make the meeting.
Thanks,
Marika
On 4/18/17, 08:53, "gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <gnso-ssc-bounces@icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
Dear Marika,
> So far > I’ve only seen Poncelet express his support for the proposed way > forward.
I assumed that it was clear from our call that I support this approach, but let me hereby state it explicitly.
Julf
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ssc mailing list Gnso-ssc@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ssc