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