<<<
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
>>>
 
 |