RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Proposal for discussion at today's meeting

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Agreed that this could be considered as separate proposal.  

________________________________

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:13 AM
To: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Proposal for discussion at today's
meeting



You are welcome, Steve. It might be better to view yours and mine as
separate proposals going forward. I.e., I get the sense that there are
people in the WG who prefer my original over your modifications and I
wouldn't want your second proposal to be considered an amendment that
eliminates my first one. 

 

________________________________

From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 4:56 PM
To: Milton L Mueller; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Proposal for discussion at today's
meeting

 

See attached suggested modification of Milton's document.  Thanks to
Milton for putting a concrete proposal on the table.  

 

Steve Metalitz

 

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 4:01 AM
To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] Proposal for discussion at today's meeting

See attached document. It is entitled "The Compromise Parity Proposal"