Re: [gnso-dow123] change to next week/too many conflicts

["Jordyn Buchanan" <jordyn.buchanan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Marilyn:

Unfortunatley, I've been travelling and away from e-mail for the past week.

It does seem like the proposed time for tomorrow's call is looking
problematic.  I think Marilyn's suggestion of putting the call off one
more week (until April 25), and to also return it to our regular time
(9:30 AM EDT) seems like the right move under the circumstances.

Jordyn

On 4/17/06, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> Seems there are a lot of conflicts, and tomorrow is very difficult for me,as
> well. Would prefer to move call to next week.
>
> had earlier suggested just moving time but see that lots of folks seem to
> have conflicts tomorrow.
>
> Jordyn, can you advise us on status? thanks, Marilyn
>
>
>  ________________________________
>  From: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Move up time for call?
> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:00:26 -0400
>
>  tues is bad for me as well
>
> David W. Maher wrote:
> I agree. Tuesday doesn't work
> David
> At 07:18 AM 4/17/2006, Steve Metalitz wrote:
>
>
> I am in the same position as Maggie.
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sun Apr 16 19:39:06 2006
> Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Move up time for call?
>
> I vote for Kathy's option #2; Tuesday afternoon doesn't work for me.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [
> mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> KathrynKL@xxxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 4:59 PM
> To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-dow123] Move up time for call?
>
>
>
> Jordyn and all:
> As I mentioned in an earlier email, I am not available at the time of this
> call.  I have a very long-standing commitment that cannot be changed.  Since
> the NCUC procedural proposal is the first item on the agenda, I would very
> much like to participate in its discussion.
>
> Could we:
>        1) Move the call up to 1 PM EDT? or
>        2) Move the NCUC procedural proposal to the next meeting along with a
> general discussion (one would expect) of next moves and further TORs to be
> addressed?
>
> Regards, Kathy
>
> Agenda
> 1. discuss the NCUC procedural proposal,
> 2. recap events from Wellington,
> 3. discuss the future chairing of the task force.
>  < http://www.conferencemgr.com/Images/Default/spacer.gif>
> Date:
> Tuesday, April 18, 2006
>  < http://www.conferencemgr.com/Images/Default/spacer.gif>
> Start Time: 02:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>  < http://www.conferencemgr.com/Images/Default/spacer.gif>
> End Time: 03:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>