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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>