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