-----Original Message----- I do not recall that all ICG members expressed concerns and I also do not recall these as particular concerns, rather as questions. My recollection supports a wording like:
"Some ICG members raised questions about the jurisdiction governing agreements in the IETF proposal. The ICG decided ....."
Agree that it was some members. To make it even more accurate, we should say "Some ICG members raised questions about the statement that the current ICANN-IETF MoU "does not specify a jurisdiction" and asked for clarification regarding the legal status of the MoU."
"Wilson stated that the numbers proposal essentially reflects the consensus among the RIRs."
I recollect Paul describing it in more detail which I consider relevant to minute. My recollection would support a wording like:
"Wilson described that the numbers proposal was generated by the CRISP team based on open, transparent and inclusive community discussions in all five regions and that it represented the consensus built from these discussions in an open and transparent process."
I think the earlier statement was more accurate. The latter sounds a bit promotional and I think you are putting words in Paul's mouth.
could be further clarified like this:
"Discussions among the ICG members clarified that the RIRs do not propose to change the way global Internet number policies are made. The RIR response is limited to the implementation of these policies."
This is much better. More accurate regarding what was actually said.