RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consolidated Draft of Initial Report for IGO/INGO PDP WG

["Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT" <MACMASTER@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Avri, and colleagues,

That edit (72) works for me.  (Was written to convey given rationales.)  Your 
edit is more neutral while still communicating the rationale.

Thanks,
Claudia 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 2013-06-05 16:34
To: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx)
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consolidated Draft of Initial Report for IGO/INGO 
PDP WG 



On 5 Jun 2013, at 10:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> For the most part, Avri's suggestions seem pretty reasonable to me. I don't 
> understand AD72.  Also, I think that AD86 was covered elsewhere but it is 
> okay to mention it again. 


thanks.

the problem with 72 is that my comment is garbled.

I am recommending replacing

unacceptably vulnerable
 
with

are as vulnerable

- the point is that they should be included because they claim they are 
similarly vulnerable to other names that have received special considerations.  
We have not defined vulnerability nor a mark of what is acceptable and what 
isn't acceptable.