I agree with the Statement which is a good document.  

S.P. Anandan
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 24/3/14, Satish Babu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 Subject: Re: new statement on IANA
 To: [log in to unmask]
 Date: Monday, 24 March, 2014, 7:09 AM
 
 The statement reads
 well, and it has my support. I've marked a few minor
 suggestions in the document.
 
 
 
 
 
 satish
 
 
 
 
 
 
 On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Nuno Garcia <[log in to unmask]>
 wrote:
 
 
 This is a good document,
 congratulations!
 
 On 23 March 2014
 19:21, Heather Leson <[log in to unmask]>
 wrote:
 
 
 
 
 Thank you.
 
 I've reviewed and look forward to the next steps.
 
 Heather
 
 
 
 
 
 Heather Leson
 [log in to unmask]
 
 
 Twitter: HeatherLeson 
 Blog: textontechs.com
 
 
 On Sun, Mar 23, 2014
 at 2:49 PM, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]>
 wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I am with McTim on this one.
 
 
 
 Nicolas
 
 
 
 On 2014-03-23 1:47 PM, McTim wrote:
 
 
 It is a perfectly reasonable statement IMO.
 
 
 
 On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]>
 wrote:
 
 
 Hello everyone,
 
 
 
 just to clarify about this statement as NCSG comment on IANA
 transition:
 
 - we had the PC meeting today and discussed about the
 statement as was
 
 requested. we made some changes suggested during the
 meeting.
 
 - this version was circulated  by Milton to the NCSG list
 with 24 hours for
 
 comments.
 
 - after that I will send it on behalf of NCSG to the
 concerned parties.
 
 hope that is much more clear.
 
 
 
 Best Regards,
 
 
 
 Rafik
 
 
 
 
 
 2014-03-23 17:51 GMT+09:00 Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>:
 
 
 Visible here:
 
 
 
 
 
 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJ0Fo_4LalYbyRuq4B3X5uf7TySIDq9Mrb3UVByoXIg/edit?usp=sharing