Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR
- To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR
- From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:40:33 +0000
Personally speaking I think your reply would reflect my own views and
interpretation of what we had agreed on
Mr. Michele Neylon
Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity
On 21 Sep 2011, at 19:21, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The IPC submitted a very substantive comment regarding the PEDNR report - see
> I felt that some of their comments needed to be addressed, as they could be
> inferred as saying that the WG was less than meticulous in reviewing the
> comments we received to the draft report.
> I have taken the liberty of replying. This was done purely on my only behalf
> and I made that clear. Nevertheless, I think (hope?) that the comments do
> reflect the views of the WG when it reviewed the original IPC comments. A
> copy of my posting is attached.
> As Marika has not yet summarized the comments, I am hoping that my new post
> will be reflected in that summary. This is in line with the future plans to
> have a "reply" cycle in future comment periods.
> If anyone feels that I have mis-represented the WG, please let me and Marika
> know ASAP and I will do what I can to fix it.
> <Reply to IPC.pdf>