Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan

Personally speaking I think your reply would reflect my own views and 
interpretation of what we had agreed on

Regards

Michele 

Mr. Michele Neylon
Blacknight
http://Blacknight.tel

Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity

On 21 Sep 2011, at 19:21, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The IPC submitted a very substantive comment regarding the PEDNR report - see 
> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/pednr-board-recommendations-15aug11-en.htm.
> 
> I felt that some of their comments needed to be addressed, as they could be 
> inferred as saying that the WG was less than meticulous in reviewing the 
> comments we received to the draft report.
> 
> I have taken the liberty of replying. This was done purely on my only behalf 
> and I made that clear. Nevertheless, I think (hope?) that the comments do 
> reflect the views of the WG when it reviewed the original IPC comments. A 
> copy of my posting is attached.
> 
> As Marika has not yet summarized the comments, I am hoping that my new post 
> will be reflected in that summary. This is in line with the future plans to 
> have a "reply" cycle in future comment periods.
> 
> If anyone feels that I have mis-represented the WG, please let me and Marika 
> know ASAP and I will do what I can to fix it.
> 
> Alan
> <Reply to IPC.pdf>