On 24-Feb-15 21:29, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Thanks for following up on this. To be clear, the answers being
> solicited by the CWG-stewardship are meant to be provided by
> stakeholder groups, and not their representative members? If that is
> the case, then the NCSG Policy Committee will need to endorse the
> responses as NCSG input to the CWG.

Originally I had thought it was addressed to any individual.  At a
certain point it became apparent that they wanted SG and Constituency
level responses.  At our Singapore meeting we discussed sending a
response - that is why i initiated the drive document and added some of
the comments that had been expressed on the list.

avri

I