RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Outcome of survey + updated conclusions and recommendations chapter
- To: joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Outcome of survey + updated conclusions and recommendations chapter
- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:32:12 -0700
I agree that this language is not clear. We are certainly making
recommendations for future work, which may include policy development.
The current report, however, doesn't contain any immediate changes to
Can you recommend alternative wording that would satisfy your concerns?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Outcome of survey + updated
conclusions and recommendations chapter
From: Joe St Sauver <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, June 30, 2009 11:25 am
I strongly object to the current "Recommended Next Steps" introduction
"Based on the findings described in this report and the extensive
discussions that have taken place, the Working Group does not deem
it appropriate or effective to make any recommendation for policy
development or policy changes to address fast flux hosting at this
point in time."
That statement simply makes no sense given the portfolio of ideas which