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