It probably makes more sense for ICANN to comment on this draft first (and quickly), before the other communities do (if at all). After a brief review, I did not see anything that would make this clearly deficient for its intended purpose.

Greg

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

Hi,

I forwarded this once before, but I'm nervous that I might have
forwarded the wrong version -- I _did_ forward the wrong version of
something else recently, after all. So I'm forwarding this again,
just so that we're clear about what we're talking about.

This is really a proposal for an agreement between the Trust and
ICANN, so in principle it shouldn't really require much in the way of
attention by people here. But we want to be transparent and, as you
can see, this is pretty straightforward.

We're a little concerned that we're having a hard time getting
responses from our correspondents on the ICANN staff, so if anyone has
the opportunty to tickle them on this topic we'd appreciate it.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

_______________________________________________
Iana-ipr mailing list
Iana-ipr@nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr