<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] "Deliberations Closed"
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Robert Hoggarth" <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] "Deliberations Closed"
- From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:47:55 -0400
I agree. Thanks. Jon
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 1:05 PM
To: Robert Hoggarth; Avri Doria
Cc: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] "Deliberations Closed"
I don't think we should take anything out where there are two or less
objections; simply note the minority position.
Chuck
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 12:40 PM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] "Deliberations Closed"
No. I should have typed - we'll take them out of the "draft"
package. Sorry. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
RobH
On 7/25/08 9:33 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 25 Jul 2008, at 18:25, Robert Hoggarth wrote:
> As agreed if there is not consensus on specific points we'll
take
> them out of the final package.
so we will not know what is in the final package until you send
it?
a.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|