RE: [gnso-dow123] Re: Updates
Dear all, Jordyn was not here so Bruce asked me to give this presentation. I was also asked to include extra material which necessitated cutting some of the slides on the formulations. In the interests of time, we actually stopped presenting before we got to the OPOC, .name, NCUC proposal slides. Here's the final presentation attached. all the best, Maria _____ From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Metalitz Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 5:14 AM To: KathrynKL@xxxxxxx; jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Re: Updates The slide is factually correct and I believe should remain as Jordyn has drafted it. Jordyn, aren't you going to miss this????? Steve Metalitz _____ From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of KathrynKL@xxxxxxx Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 11:56 AM To: jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Re: Updates Thanks Jordyn for putting this together. Hope everyone's travels to NZ were uneventful. Jordayn, I see these slides as a continuation of Vancouver, and appreciate the updating you have done. That said, I strongly object to the line on Slide 8 (Status of Work). ".Recently concluded public comment period. Received approximately 45 responses; most favored Formulation #2" I think this leave a very incomplete impression. If we wanted to say that "strong comments were submitted by both sides, with leading organizations weighing in for both formulations." that would be fine. Or if we wanted to take the following lines line from our Final Report, that would be fine too: "The comments show a division in the community, with 9 respondents expressing support for Formulation 1 and 33 respondents supporting Formulation 2. A number of the comments supporting Formulation 2 featured similar argumentation and structure which may be the result of one or more constituencies encouraging participation and responses during the public comment period." It's a long sentence, but it is accurate and already agreed upon and published. (and the issue is worthy of a little extra space and discussion). Thanks, Kathy << Please find attached my first draft of the slides for the Public Forum. I'm glad to make further edits, or if people in Wellington want to co-ordinate any changes, that's fine as well. We should probably designate someone to give the presentation in Wellington. Any volunteers? Jordyn On 3/23/06, Jordyn Buchanan <jordyn.buchanan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Hello all: > >A few updates ahead of Wellington: > >1) I will be sending out a proposed set of slides momentarily. >Depending on how much time we've been allocated, these may be a little >long and need to be edited down. I'm glad to take comments and >continue to try to work on these on the next few days. However, we >are going to need to designate someone from the Task Force to present >the slides at the public forum, because... > >2) I will not be in Wellington. I have recently decided to leave >Register.com, and as a result will not be making the trip to New >Zealand. We will probably also need to discuss what this means in >terms of the ongoing chairing of the task force. I do want to make >sure that we don't lose track of our work, though, so I'm more than >willing to continue to help out as we figure out an ongoing >strategy... > >Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. > >Jordyn > Attachment:
Whois Wellington2.ppt
|